Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:18:43 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 03:11:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On August 21, 2004 at 17:48:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>That is _all_ I have said. I don't know what my working set is. I don't care >>what it is. I do know that for two different testers, bigger cache was faster, >>for Tom it wasn't. Why that is I have no idea, I really don't care, and I don't >>see any point in investigating further. > >I didn't test 256k to 512k at all, remember? That was from a hardware review >site that I have nothing to do with. > >I did run the 512k to 1024k experiment and my dual proc experiment, both of >which confirm the conclusion that I drew from Anandtech's data. > >-Tom OK. My error. However, Anandtech doesn't have a stellar reputation of late with regards to such tests. See their gaffe with TSCP. I have personally run 512K 1024K and 2048K. And I saw results from 1.5MB and 3.0MB when Eugene ran his tests. All the AMDs I have access to are opterons with 1024K of L2: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 850 stepping : 10 cpu MHz : 2388.870 cache size : 1024 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow bogomips : 4771.02 TLB size : 1088 4K pages clflush size : 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts fid vid ttp
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.