Subject:
|
Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 May 2000 02:14:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[mattdm@]stopspam[mattdm.org]
|
Viewed:
|
161 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Wilkins <mwilkins@nospam.nai.com> wrote:
> I believe that this is the reason SCSI is a better drive interface solution
> for many gamers. UDMA and ATA66 might have equal to or better throughput than
> Ultra2Wide and LVD SCSI, but you don't get the processor hit from SCSI that
> could mean the difference between getting fragged and dodging.
Yes indeed. Also bad for anything both cpu and disk intensive, like
compiling or certain graphics stuff.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
| This is a result of the Number One difference between IDE/UDMA and SCSI; IDE 'borrows' number-crunching from the system processor (thus affecting processor load and responsiveness), whereas SCSI has all the number-crunching built into the controller (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
