A while back I posted my views on the new Simtec Net100 100bT network card for RiscPCs, and promised to keep you posted with further details and a review of the Castle Net20 card. And then... silence.
Part of the problem is that I couldn't do proper speed tests, and partly because the Castle card didn't seem to work properly. Other people have been saying on the newsgroups that they were having the latter problem too, so instead of battling on myself I decided to call on the assistance of someone who actually knew what they were talking about.
To cut a long story short, examples of both cards ended up at a testing lab, and we've just received the report this week. I won't spoil it by making comments, just go to the report and see for yourself.
| |
Network cards compared |
| |
guestx (15:01 20/6/2002)
rich (15:13 20/6/2002)
Phlamethrower (15:43 20/6/2002)
rich (16:12 20/6/2002)
Phlamethrower (14:11 21/6/2002)
danielbarron (09:16 22/6/2002)
stdevel (09:38 22/6/2002)
rich (10:01 22/6/2002)
danielbarron (20:29 24/6/2002)
rich (11:23 2/7/2002)
|
| |
|
GuestX |
Message #91143, posted by guestx at 15:01, 20/6/2002 |
Member
Posts: 102
|
It doesn't look like we can go to the report, though. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #91144, posted by rich at 15:13, 20/6/2002, in reply to message #91143 |
 Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Doh, adding new news just as Tim starts work on updating all the non-forum stuff wasn't the best of timing :( I've kludged it back together now. BTW, there are some spelling mistakes in the report; this is how the original arrived, and I've just posted it as-is with no doctoring. OK, so maybe I changed "risc pc" at the top ;) On the plus side the news comments work nicely :)
[Edited by rich at 16:37, 20/6/2002] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #91145, posted by Phlamethrower at 15:43, 20/6/2002, in reply to message #91144 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
I think they could have done with a nice graph for simple folk like me :D |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #91146, posted by rich at 16:12, 20/6/2002, in reply to message #91145 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
What,
Net100 ######## some
Net20. | none
:D |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #91147, posted by Phlamethrower at 14:11, 21/6/2002, in reply to message #91146 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Exactly! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Daniel Barron |
Message #91148, posted by danielbarron at 09:16, 22/6/2002, in reply to message #91147 |
Member
Posts: 19
|
The article was not very informative. For example, did they contact Castle and see if they could solve the problem? Also did they compair the speeds of the podule and nic versions? I am dissapointed with a mear doubling in speed - with a podule I would expect it to be about 4 times faster. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stuart Tyrrell |
Message #91149, posted by stdevel at 09:38, 22/6/2002, in reply to message #91148 |
www.stdevel.co.uk
Posts: 279
|
To clarify: The only cards available at the moment are:
Simtec NIC (and ISA)
Castle podule. Despite the wider bus available to podules, the Simtec card and Castle card are within a couple of percent of each other speed wise (neglecting the 170K/sec result for the Castle card). I am aware (as I would be!) that the Simtec card is nowhere close to its theoretical limits. Certainly with appropriate OS support the card is capable of running at 3.5MB/sec plus - as it does under other OS's for example. It is not my place to comment further regarding results for the podule card. Stuart. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #91150, posted by rich at 10:01, 22/6/2002, in reply to message #91149 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
The article was not very informative It's not an article, it's a report from a testing centre. They tested the cards, and then wrote up the results. Without having been there at the time, I can't exactly embelish upon what's been written.
did they contact Castle and see if they could solve the problem? I think the test was on the cards themselves as they're being sold, not on how good tech support is. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Daniel Barron |
Message #91151, posted by danielbarron at 20:29, 24/6/2002, in reply to message #91150 |
Member
Posts: 19
|
stdevel, interesting comment about the nic running at 3.5MB/sec on other OSes. I presume you mean ARMLinux and RiscBSD? So are you suggesting that it could be improved much further under RISC OS or is the OS itself the problem? rich, I think it would have been a good idea if they contacted castle anyway incase it was a config problem. Also, even though it was a benchmark test, I think people would have been interested in castles response to the problem. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #91152, posted by rich at 11:23, 2/7/2002, in reply to message #91151 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Castle have got in contact and are working on the problem. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
