Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 12:17:23 06/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2004 at 13:34:33, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On June 17, 2004 at 13:29:02, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On June 17, 2004 at 13:20:40, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>On June 17, 2004 at 06:55:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>[...] >>>> >>>>Please list the processors in order of L2 cache speed and you'll realize that >>>>speed still is of overwhelming importance. List them at random access speed for >>>>L2 cache (some processors are faster in streaming than random access in their >>>>caches like P4). >>>> >>>>Basically opteron has fastest L2 cache which can deliver each 13 cycles data (4 >>>>reads simultaneously even if i understand well). No other processor can deliver >>>>data from L2 cache that fast. >>> >>>Intel Itanium 2 Processor Reference Manual For Software Development and >>>Optimization, Table 6-4 "Cache Summary": >>> >>>Itanium2 cache latency: >>> L1: 1 cycle, 4 loads/cycle >>> L2: 5 cycles (integer loads), 4 loads/cycle >>> L3: 12/14 cycles, depending on cache size (integer loads), 1 load/cycle >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Eugene >>> >> >>Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Itanium's caches off by 1? In other words, >>the 6MB cache on the Itanium is L3, and the L1 cache is like 1KB? > >L1D: 16KB >L1I: 16KB >L2: 256KB >L3: 1.5/3/6MB That's not as bad as I thought. But it makes me wonder even more why Itanium isn't clocked higher. With a VLIW core, they should save like 40% of their die due to not having an issue queue & parallel logic etc. When combined with a small L1, they should really be clocked at pentium 4 speeds, yet they are much slower than Opteron. anthony
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.