blueturtl
March 30th, 2006, 03:46 PM
The idea of this thread is for you to post annoying hardware design glitches and flaws that you've come across, explain how you stumbled on them, and explain their significance to yourself or people involved. Do not post experiences on so called bad apples, only something that can be generalized and confirmed by others as well. Bonus points for stuff that isn't that common knowledge (even among geeks). Consider this an opportunity to educate others.
I'll start:
FACT: Around the time Pentium's were top of the line, did you know that system's with more than 64 megabytes of RAM would suffer from degraded performance? The early Intel chipsets with the exeption of the 430HX "Triton II" were unable to cache any RAM beyond the 64 meg boundary! Read this link (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/cache/charCacheability-c.html) for the full technical details and background info...
EVIDENCE: I had an old Pentium 166 at the time with 64 megabytes of memory. I remember I had a Voodoo board installed to enhance the gaming. However 64 megs just wasn't enough at times, and some more demanding games of the time like Half-Life or Unreal would show a lot of swapping at first before running smoothly. I bought me an extra 32 megabytes of RAM to get rid of the swapping. After installing more RAM there was less swapping, but the games now ran at a noticeably lower framerate than before! I remember being really really puzzled about that.:confused:
IMPLICATIONS: More memory actually equals less performance! Intel left Pentium owners in a very poor position where they had to gamble between memory amount and memory speed! :-k Before someone mentions AMD I'd like to point out that AMD chips before the K7 really took a beating from all Intel based offerings, so there generally were no options if you wanted something better performancewise!
Ok... your turn.
I'll start:
FACT: Around the time Pentium's were top of the line, did you know that system's with more than 64 megabytes of RAM would suffer from degraded performance? The early Intel chipsets with the exeption of the 430HX "Triton II" were unable to cache any RAM beyond the 64 meg boundary! Read this link (http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/cache/charCacheability-c.html) for the full technical details and background info...
EVIDENCE: I had an old Pentium 166 at the time with 64 megabytes of memory. I remember I had a Voodoo board installed to enhance the gaming. However 64 megs just wasn't enough at times, and some more demanding games of the time like Half-Life or Unreal would show a lot of swapping at first before running smoothly. I bought me an extra 32 megabytes of RAM to get rid of the swapping. After installing more RAM there was less swapping, but the games now ran at a noticeably lower framerate than before! I remember being really really puzzled about that.:confused:
IMPLICATIONS: More memory actually equals less performance! Intel left Pentium owners in a very poor position where they had to gamble between memory amount and memory speed! :-k Before someone mentions AMD I'd like to point out that AMD chips before the K7 really took a beating from all Intel based offerings, so there generally were no options if you wanted something better performancewise!
Ok... your turn.