Larger caches, slower??

Daniel A-S

Daniel A-S

Member
I thought the intention of having larger caches was that it could fetch files quicker.

I suppose, there is more data to run through, which may take up more time.

It's just from reading some of the posts around here, some people are saying that 32bit cpu's should stay at about 256kb.

What's the true answer here?

Tnx.
 
its quite obvious to see that larger caches are benificial to system performance... opterons get a fairly large peformance increase due to their larger system caches... its is also evident when you look at the various A64 cpus as two cpus running at the same clockspeed will have different performance ratings depending on their cahce size.
however, there is often a slight increase in latency but it wont make a huge difference
 
Yes, it is true that larger L2 cache has higher latencys. However, the increase might be 10% (not a real figure) for double the cache. So it outweighs the higher latencys.
 
So, I take it all the fuss about is mainly the cost.

I think larger caches are more beneficial for 64bit processors, but considering the latency isn't exactly an 'issue' a lager cache for a 32bit cpu is just a waste of money.
 
Daniel A-S said:
So, I take it all the fuss about is mainly the cost.

I think larger caches are more beneficial for 64bit processors, but considering the latency isn't exactly an 'issue' a lager cache for a 32bit cpu is just a waste of money.
Click to expand...
even though hardly anyone actually runs a 64Bit OS :P
 
Large caches help any system with high RAM access times. Since finding whatever you're looking for in the highest latency cache is still way faster than going to RAM, larger caches help performance. Also, cache latency is somewhat relative.

32bit or 64bit really doesn't matter.
 
I really think when u get dow to it with todays amd processors you will be happy anyways. they design them to run great and thats what they do!
 
as cromewell et al said the latencies and performance go up with increase cache size, but the performance/latency/cost curve has limits, beyond which the benefits fall off rapidly.

Amds aren;t really as cache size sensitive as intel.
 
[-0MEGA-] said:
even though hardly anyone actually runs a 64Bit OS :P
Click to expand...
actually i have many friends (not gamers) that run 64-bit linux OS's... and even a friend who uses a MAC :) even though i don't like MAC's myself.
about the cache thing... it hasn't been proven to hurt any applications :)
in fact it has only helped in any application... but in some it doesn't at all.
so, i guess more L2 cache matters depending on what you're doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top