Author: stuart taylor
Date: 02:46:59 08/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2000 at 01:55:11, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On August 03, 2000 at 22:20:55, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On August 03, 2000 at 21:13:46, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On August 03, 2000 at 20:21:14, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On August 03, 2000 at 19:23:37, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 03, 2000 at 18:59:54, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 03, 2000 at 14:26:49, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 03, 2000 at 01:22:18, stuart taylor wrote:>>256k L2 cache is better than regular Athlons 512k? >>> >>>I believe that HIARCS would run faster on the old Athlon because it has a bigger >>>cache. HIARCS runs extremely fast on Power Macs with 1MB of L2 cache. >>> >>>> >>>-Tom >> >>So size of L2 cache, and its speed, ARE two different things then!? >>S.Taylor > >Yes. The cartridges of old Athlons contain several chips. One is the processor >and the rest are the L2 cache. The L2 cache runs at some fraction of the >processor's clock speed, like 1/2 or 1/3. > >The Tbird is one chip and it has L2 cache built-in. Because it's on the same >chip, the L2 cache runs at the same frequency as the processor. > >The Tbird's cache is faster because it's closer to the processor and it runs at >a higher frequency. > >-Tom I mean, so Hiarcs (and possibly new programs to come) prefers "bigger" L2 cache, rather than "faster" L2 cache? Or am I mixed up? Is Tomshardware named after you? Didn't I once see a mirror site with Hebrew? S.Taylor
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.