If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AMD Zen L1 Data Cache only 32K
Seems like the limited AMD Zen processor's level 1 data cache of 32 kilobyte
could make it a bit of a flop ! Ouch ! This will at the very least half the processor's effectiveness maybe even worse. It depends a bit on how fast the L2 and L3 is... but probably at least twice as slow so that won't help much. So this 8 core processor would be a 4 core processor in reality or even worse, like a dual core. In comparision AMD X2 3800+ dual core bought in 2006 has 64 kilobyte data cache (and instruction cache). Bye, Skybuck. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
AMD Zen L1 Data Cache only 32K
Skybuck Flying wrote:
Seems like the limited AMD Zen processor's level 1 data cache of 32 kilobyte could make it a bit of a flop ! Ouch ! This will at the very least half the processor's effectiveness maybe even worse. It depends a bit on how fast the L2 and L3 is... but probably at least twice as slow so that won't help much. So this 8 core processor would be a 4 core processor in reality or even worse, like a dual core. In comparision AMD X2 3800+ dual core bought in 2006 has 64 kilobyte data cache (and instruction cache). Bye, Skybuck. Historical precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache "The original Pentium 4 processor had a four-way set associative L1 data cache of 8 KB in size..." And the Wikipedia article describes some of the thought processes that go into cache design. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
AMD Zen L1 Data Cache only 32K
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:49:52 PM UTC+8, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Seems like the limited AMD Zen processor's level 1 data cache of 32 kilobyte could make it a bit of a flop ! Ouch ! This will at the very least half the processor's effectiveness maybe even worse. It depends a bit on how fast the L2 and L3 is... but probably at least twice as slow so that won't help much. You could go back to a Duron then what had 128 kB L1! I am more interested in L2/L3 latency, which was a weakness in the Phenom and Bulldozer families. I hope some more benchmarks will trickle out. Companies like Asus/Gigabyte/Tyan must have had sample CPUs for a while. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
counting L1 Data cache access on Xeon | Sudeep Ghosh | Intel | 0 | March 28th 07 08:15 PM |
WD 74GB RAPTOR 16MB CACHE INCOMPATIBLE, Previous generation with8MB of cache work fine. | Justin Piszcz | Abit Motherboards | 0 | December 25th 06 12:28 AM |
External USB Hard-Drive - USB v1.0 or v2.0? - 5,400rpm or 7,200rpm? - 2MB cache or 8MB cache? | Wayne Youngman | Storage (alternative) | 12 | January 8th 04 11:40 PM |
Should I write-cache data disks in XP ? | John McGaw | Storage (alternative) | 3 | August 30th 03 06:00 PM |
advice for Maxtor 120GB please. Do I choose 2MB cache or 8 MB cache ???? | Nick | General | 0 | June 23rd 03 09:38 PM |