Of course I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek. Microsoft made a statement which clearly states that the performance hit is 0.4 percent. According to the originator of this thread, this particular usage is incorrect because they meant 40%. Since he is convinced that MS is incorrect I assumed that he would take them to task for the error.
Without a numerical value, I noted that in a discussion of this topic
here the authors state, "Despite the technical logistics of this model, the fact remains that numerous accounts exist of users claiming that after setting this tweak, they received a serious boost in performance. Our tests revlealed that the tweak made absolutely no difference on PII or PIII processors."
Denny thanks for the link, I found it fastinating, however at 1:30 AM my eye lids are really drooping, so I will re-read it tomorrow without the fog. I am glad I took Hardware 101, actually 603, so I can undersatand the author. I actually remember most ot the terms for five years ago. Happy New Year.
However, if you wish to save your system the HAL call, and just supply the accurate L2 cache size (or preempt an unlikely HAL error), feel free to set the static value for your processor. Or, if you still have a PI (heaven forbid), continue on.
There's no harm in setting it to your cache size in the registry just in case the HAL fails.
Denny Denham
2 Intern
•
18.8K Posts
0
January 1st, 2004 03:00
Of course I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek. Microsoft made a statement which clearly states that the performance hit is 0.4 percent. According to the originator of this thread, this particular usage is incorrect because they meant 40%. Since he is convinced that MS is incorrect I assumed that he would take them to task for the error.
Without a numerical value, I noted that in a discussion of this topic here the authors state, "Despite the technical logistics of this model, the fact remains that numerous accounts exist of users claiming that after setting this tweak, they received a serious boost in performance. Our tests revlealed that the tweak made absolutely no difference on PII or PIII processors."
msgale
2 Intern
•
2.5K Posts
0
January 1st, 2004 04:00
Denny thanks for the link, I found it fastinating, however at 1:30 AM my eye lids are really drooping, so I will re-read it tomorrow without the fog. I am glad I took Hardware 101, actually 603, so I can undersatand the author. I actually remember most ot the terms for five years ago. Happy New Year.
b11ng00
10 Posts
0
January 1st, 2004 07:00
However, if you wish to save your system the HAL call, and just supply the accurate L2 cache size (or preempt an unlikely HAL error), feel free to set the static value for your processor. Or, if you still have a PI (heaven forbid), continue on.
There's no harm in setting it to your cache size in the registry just in case the HAL fails.
Thank for the link.