[rescue] Indy CPU upgrade

Jonathan C. Patschke jp at celestrion.net
Wed May 21 16:34:48 CDT 2003

On Wed, 21 May 2003, Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez wrote:

> R4600 is worse than R4400 in both Int and FP. The R4600 was optimized for
> "low cost" :).

Well, yeah.

> The R4400 had a little bit more smarts to it, plus it had support
> for SMP on chip.

Right, but that's not really a consideration on an Indy.

> The R4600 didn't... The R4600 had a bit better cache implementation,
> and I believe a shorter pipeline thant the R4400...

Well, that's something I hadn't heard before.  But, then, I never
seriously read up on the R4600.  It's not a particularly interesting
MIPS implementation (like, say the R4000/R4400 or R8000).

> I believe that R4600 came with smaller caches 512K vs 1M for the R4400.

That's true.  I'd forgotten about that.

Jonathan Patschke   )  "Lawsuit...why doesn't it surprise me that more
Thorndale, TX      (    than half of that word is Suit?"
                    )                                  --George Adkins

More information about the rescue mailing list