[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" :).
> 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