Re: Transwarp or ZipGSX? Which?

[Wayne Stewart <waynes@intergate.ca>]

Blake Patterson wrote:
> 
> Ok...which is the better accelerator to work with?
> 
> Transwarp GS 7MHz + 32K cache
> 
>  or
> 
> ZipGSX 8MHz + 16K cachce
> 
> ??
> 
> Is the software, stability of one greater than the other?  Also, I have
> faith that both could run Ninjaforce's Megademo...
> 
> http://www.ninjaforce.com/html/products_megademo.html
> 
> ...as I found this old usenet post by the author:
> 
> "The Ninjaforce MEGADEMO comes out on 2
> 3.5" disks and requires:
> * 2 MEG of Expansion Memory
> * A fast accelerator
>   (ZipChipGSX 8MHZ or better or
>    Transwarp GS 7MHZ with cache update or
>    better)
> 
> Please stay tuned."
> 
> I know both are hard to come by, but if presented the choice?

I have both ZipGSs and a TransWarpGS. I have them running a 15mhz 
and without opening the computer I couldn't tell which one I'm 
using. If I lost all my Apple II equipment and was buying another 
accelerator and only had those two choices and no more information, 
I'd choose the ZipGS. 
Mainly because an 8 mhz ZipGS would almost surely come with an 8 mhz 
65816. The two 8mhz 65816s I have run fine at 15 mhz in a ZipGS. The 
TransWarpGS isn't as tolerant that way and I'd likely have to order 
in a 14mhz 65816. A 16k ache size isn't important since I can get the 
chips from a local electronics store and bump it to 64k right away. 

There's also the question of which GALs the TransWarpGS comes with. 
If you're going to speed it up you want Rev A GALs with the exception 
of #3 GAL. If #3 is a Rev A, I believe you have a problem using SCSI.

Another reason in my case is both the ZipGSs and TransWarpGS I have 
topout at 15mhz. I don't think I'll be able to get any more out of 
the TransWarpGS but I think that possibly if I acquired 12ns SRAM 
the ZipGS may go faster. Unfortunately the fastest SRAM I can find 
locally is 15ns.

	Wayne