> There are also large numbers of motherboards around which don't > cache the memory above 512Mb (or an even lower limit). With those it may > degrade overall performance to add more than 512 Mb. > I can't think of any motherboards for Pentium II/III/IV,Celerons,Athlons or Durons for which this will apply as they all have onboard 2nd level cache with the exception of the early celerons (266 & 300 [plain 300]). The 266 & 300 celerons were pathetic due to a complete lack of 2nd level cache. The only limit that I can remember is 64MB for Intel TX chipset which was for Pentium I. Steve
- Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Steve Greenbank
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Lynn Allen
- filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Rick Housh
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Laurie Solomon
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windo... Steve Greenbank
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Jawed Ashraf
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windo... LAURIE SOLOMON
- Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Steve Greenbank
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Julian Robinson
- Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Raphael Bustin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows LAURIE SOLOMON
- Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Steve Greenbank
- RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows B. Twieg