By: EduardoS (no.delete@this.spam.com), April 21, 2012 12:37 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon@anon.com) on 4/20/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>Memory intensive is not necessarily the same as cache intensive.
"Memory substyem intensive", now it's ok for you?
>It hits a *slightly* higher frequency, which may be impressive if it were not 1/2
>the size, 1/2 the associativity, and write-through.
There is the process difference, GF's 32nm sucks, Llano wasn't able to pass 3GHz while it's predecessor hits 3.8GHz on 45nm.
While Llano on this process didn't exceed 3.0GHz BD was able to hit 4.3GHz on turbo, 43% more frequency is a lot higher.
>POWER7 and Intel designs are going with larger L1s and far faster L2s. I think that's a much more robust approach.
On the other hand POWER7 and Intel designs have to share that cache to 2 threads and will halt with far less L1 misses than BD, and misses that may came from either thread, hey... Changing caches sizes is pretty simple, specially higher levels, can we assume that, if the uarch required a faster L2 AMD would have done it like IBM and Intel did?
---------------------------
>Memory intensive is not necessarily the same as cache intensive.
"Memory substyem intensive", now it's ok for you?
>It hits a *slightly* higher frequency, which may be impressive if it were not 1/2
>the size, 1/2 the associativity, and write-through.
There is the process difference, GF's 32nm sucks, Llano wasn't able to pass 3GHz while it's predecessor hits 3.8GHz on 45nm.
While Llano on this process didn't exceed 3.0GHz BD was able to hit 4.3GHz on turbo, 43% more frequency is a lot higher.
>POWER7 and Intel designs are going with larger L1s and far faster L2s. I think that's a much more robust approach.
On the other hand POWER7 and Intel designs have to share that cache to 2 threads and will halt with far less L1 misses than BD, and misses that may came from either thread, hey... Changing caches sizes is pretty simple, specially higher levels, can we assume that, if the uarch required a faster L2 AMD would have done it like IBM and Intel did?
