ZIP-II 4 Vs. Transwarp //e (Mk1) -- Pros and Cons?

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 59 min ago
Joined: Mar 31 2020 - 19:55
Posts: 387
ZIP-II 4 Vs. Transwarp //e (Mk1) -- Pros and Cons?

I own both a ZIP-II (4Mhz) chip, and an Applied Engineering (original) Transwarp //e (also 4MHz).

 

I have always considered the ZIP Chip to be the better product, as it uses no slot. Wht pros and cons can you all list between these two that would dissuade me of this? 

 

These are in two, separate systems, and I haven't done critical benchmarks, but I expect the ZIP-II to be slightly faster by design, howeer, I do not know if the original Transwarp can be overclocked. 

dorkbert's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 46 min ago
Joined: Apr 12 2009 - 16:33
Posts: 313
There is no such thing as a

There is no such thing as a Transwarp //e. There was Transwarp, Transwarp II, and Transwarp GS.

Transwarp is a fairly common card, while Transwarp II were sold in very limited numbers before a patent infrigement judgement halted the sale.

Zipchip were known for their unreliability. SRAM cache encased in the epoxy packaging would frequently fail.

Online
Last seen: 1 hour 30 min ago
Joined: Aug 18 2017 - 16:53
Posts: 106
The Transwarp (@3.6MHz) uses

The Transwarp (@3.6MHz) uses their own RAM. There are 256kB. 64kB are used for main RAM, 64kB for AUX RAM, 16kB for mirrored ROM and the remaining part is used as a RamWorks in the aux slot in the IIe.

Local RAM is faster than any cache design.

Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 59 min ago
Joined: Mar 31 2020 - 19:55
Posts: 387
dorkbert wrote:There is no
dorkbert wrote:

There is no such thing as a Transwarp //e. There was Transwarp, Transwarp II, and Transwarp GS.

Transwarp is a fairly common card, while Transwarp II were sold in very limited numbers before a patent infrigement judgement halted the sale.

Zipchip were known for their unreliability. SRAM cache encased in the epoxy packaging would frequently fail.

 

It's the original Transwarp, not the II or the GS, although I do own the latter and have it in my main //gs.  I didn't remember that the Transwarp worked in a ][ or a ][+, though. That is interesting, albeit it not very useful. The software that tends to benefit from an accelerator also tends to rely on other hardware updates, or greatly benefits from them, so I see little reason to me to ever put an accelerator in a ][ or a ][+.

 

I've owned two IP chip systems and never had one fail. How hot did the systems running them, and have them fail, become? I can see overheating being an issue for the sealed package. I do not recall what was special about the Transwarp II, at all, other than the faster (8MHz IIRC), speed. 

Log in or register to post comments