home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!agate!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!wkn
- From: wkn@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ken Neighbors)
- Subject: Hidden Refresh (was Re: 3 chip vs 9 chip SIMMS)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.175510.3441@leland.Stanford.EDU>
- Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Keywords: SIMMS, Hidden Refresh
- Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
- Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
- References: <1992Nov19.110550.14222@concurrent.co.uk> <1992Nov20.152110.24880@concurrent.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 17:55:10 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1992Nov20.152110.24880@concurrent.co.uk> nnw@concurrent.co.uk (Neil Watson) writes:
- >Anyway, bouquet of the day goes to Robert Tashjian (tashjian@netcom.com)
- >who suggested checking if the BIOS supported Hidden Refresh or Slow
- >Refresh. Sure enough the AMI BIOS I have (1990 vintage) has "Concurrent
- >Refresh" and "AT type refresh" options. Setting the "AT type refresh"
- >instead of the default makes it all seems to work. Aparently the BIOS is
- [...]
-
- I just took out my 8 1MB SIMMs and installed 4 4MB SIMMs (upgraded from
- 8MB to 16). I had to disable "Hidden Refresh" to get them to work. My
- motherboard manual says:
-
- Hidden Refresh: This option provides separate refreshing of AT-
- bus memory and local DRAM, when it is enabled, without holding CPU.
-
- This sounds like my system isn't going to run as fast as it use to. What
- kind of performance hit does this produce? (I've got a 486/33 with 64K
- external cache.)
-
- Thanks
- Ken
-