Is this True?

J

jeamourt3

New Member
cptnwinky said:
AMD are just faster chips. The P4 is too slow because of the large L2 Cache. Since AMD hasnt brokent he 256 mark they are alot faster. I think Intel has learned from their mistake though and brought the L2 Cache from 512 back down to 256.
Click to expand...

^is that true large L2 cache = slower????
 
Thats actualy almost completely incorect, the P4 isnt slow because of its cache size. Sure increased cache will have higher cache latencys, but it might be like a 10% increase when the cache is doubled.
 
AMD's are faster compared to their intel equivalent due to a faster amount of clock cycles per second than intel, thats why intel have higher clock speeds yet a lower amount of clock cycles per second.

Cache has almost no effect on the speed difference at all. A larger cache as 34erd said will increase latency in the cache but it also increases the physical size of the cache so it all works out in the end......

dragon2309
 
AMD's are faster compared to their intel equivalent due to a faster amount of clock cycles per second than intel, thats why intel have higher clock speeds yet a lower amount of clock cycles per second.
Click to expand...
because i know you dragon i'm pretty sure that this is just a poorly worded paragraph.
clock speed and cycles per second are effectivley the same the thing. AMD cycles per second and lower than intel

Cache has almost no effect on the speed difference at all. A larger cache as 34erd said will increase latency in the cache but it also increases the physical size of the cache so it all works out in the end......[/QUOTE]
True to a point. There is a law of diminishing returns past some point (at the moment anyhow)
 
basically my way of thinking about it is that amd simply has a better designed chip, it actually processes faster. it processes more stuff per cycle, basically. the chip processes stuff faster, and sends the information slower...

the whole thing about a larger cache being slower is BS...
thats like saying you can't have a 1gb stick of ram thats faster than a 512mb stick of ram, its perfectly possible to find a 1gb stick thats faster.
 
the whole thing about a larger cache being slower is BS...
thats like saying you can't have a 1gb stick of ram thats faster than a 512mb stick of ram, its perfectly possible to find a 1gb stick thats faster.
Click to expand...
err no, as cache increases so to does the latency of cache (as a general rule; barring any technology enhancements) For example intel move to 2M cache on the prescott core caused increased L2 latency from 23 cycles (in the case of 1M cache prescott) to 27 cycles.
What tends to happen is that the increased benefit from cache enlargement is ofset by the increase L2 latency.
 
Cache is basically a small amount of very fast memory that stores commonly accessed data. It's estimated that around 90% of accessed data is found in the cache. Having a lot of it means that your computer won't have to go to the RAM as frequently to find data, thus improving access time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top