Are AMD and Intel entering a core race?

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Borealis7
I cant spell it out better than xbitlabs

Yes, if having only 6 out of 25 benchmarks show better then a 5% improvement from 2MB to 4MB, and the only large improvment being a near 28% improvement in calculating an Excel 2007 spreadsheet, then yes, you have proven your point.

Increasing the cache too much dosen't give you much performance but increases the cost of a processor.

 

[Matt1970]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Phynaz

BS. Name one.

I believe he's referring to a hypothetical 2 ghz dual-core CPU with gigs upon gigs of on-die cache.

A 2 ghz cpu with 2 gigs of 3-cycle L1 and 8 gigs of 12-cycle L2 certainly would be interesting, though I think yield problems would be so great that you would be better off developing sophisticated RAM systems that can run DDR2 or DDR3 so fast that you get latency of 50 cycles or less when running your processor in the 2-3 ghz range. Having RAM that fast would also make it easy for a system like Torrenza to allocate your system RAM for use by other add-on chips to use.

Granted, that would take some hella-fast RAM. I think DDR2-2400 5-5-5-12 2T would do the trick. Good luck with that.

You wouldn't need ram if you could have 2 gigs of L1 and 12 Gigs of L3 Cache ? That would rock. .......

 

[SlowSpyder]

You wouldn't need ram if you could have 2 gigs of L1 and 12 Gigs of L3 Cache ? That would rock. .......

I really have a feeling he meant MB, not GB...?

 

[MielkeHBP]

http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html ftw.....80 cores

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: MielkeHBP
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html ftw.....80 cores

Did you know that Netburst can hit 10 GHz?
...

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

I really have a feeling he meant MB, not GB...?

No, I believe myocardia meant GB to make a point via a seemingly absurd statement.

And yes, if you had that much L1 and L2, you really wouldn't need system RAM for much of anything.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

I don't think so. My 2.0 Ghz dual-core would outperform any processor I've seen so far, including a 4 Ghz quad-core, using any application that I will ever use.

BS. Name one.

Can you even read?

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Yes, if having only 6 out of 25 benchmarks show better then a 5% improvement from 2MB to 4MB, and the only large improvment being a near 28% improvement in calculating an Excel 2007 spreadsheet, then yes, you have proven your point.

What good is an extra 2MB of cache gonna do you? Are you gonna be storing not only 100% of your drivers, along with 100% of nearly every application that it would be possible to use in it, along with the portion of Windows that you need to access, like you could with 8GB of L2 cache? And, I didn't catch it if it was so, but was that 4MB E6400 running those apps almost entirely within it's L1 cache, like a processor with 2GB of L1 and 8GB of L2 would be? You do realize that cache is about as much faster than RAM as RAM is faster than a hard drive, do you not?

Or maybe I should rephrase that for you. Would you rather use RAM that operates at the speed of the RAM you have in your system, or RAM that's ~50 times faster, along with 5 times as much of it? Which of those two systems do you think would be the better performing, at anything that you use your computer to do?

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really have a feeling he meant MB, not GB...?

If I had meant MB, why would I have typed out GB?