On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:46:11 -0600 (Central Standard Time), Chris
Goodey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>That would explain it. The 989-150 doubles the cache sizes again,
>to get a little more out of the processor. But then the question
>is why did they cripple these new processors by going back
>to so much less cache?

For one, it's cheaper. Also, not all caches are created equal.

The real question is why is HP running the PA-8500 CPU at 110 and
220-Mhz? The PA-8500 was *introduced* at 300-Mhz in the HP9000 line or
servers and workstations about 2 years ago, and currently 552-Mhz
systems are the "top end" of the PA-8500 line.

I hope someone from the e3000 hardware team has an answer for this,
either here on this forum or when we finally get a hold of them at HP
World. Or is this just another way to sell multi-CPU e3000s?