anon (anon@anon.com) on 4/22/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>The same what? It has 2x larger caches and 2x more ways, at the same latency.

Ok, see, what a big effort to not understand you are dong, eh?

You question about Power7, I answear about Power7 and make a rhetorical question (as an attempt to make you use your brain) comparing Power7 (implicit by the context, it was the target of the previous question) and you compare it to Bulldozer? What's so difficult about text interpretation?

>No, my point is that it sucks because it has a very small (and not very fast) L1
>cache, and a very slow L2 cache. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Actually, your point is that it is different from others...

Frankly, "small L1 and slow L2" isn't a good argument, it is incomplete, it doesn't explain why the processor would be slower than other, it doesn't include other important metrics and units and the only argument left as to why you think it is bad is because it is differnt from others, Greyhound had a big L1 and fast L2 and wasn't a spectacular CPU, in special, on benchmarks heavly dependent on mermory subsystem performance (I still have to use full name to you understand?) Greyhound was far away other CPUs, there are other metrics other than L1 size and L2 speed, there are even other units, you can't judge this subsystem performance based only on those two metrics!

>POWER7, 8 cycle load-to-use L2 cache.
>SB, 12 cycle load to use L2 cache.

At 256kB, much simpler pipeline and memory ordering rules for Power7 and lower clockspeed for SB, since you will miss-understand the "clockspeed" let's say the SB have a higher stage delay.

>>Of course, with only one thread Power7 and SB will have more cache avaliable but
>>hardly the priority were single-threaded performance, they
>
>Yes, but that does not mean it is a good core because you can ignore the fact that single thread performance sucks.

Look at your response, the processor you are talking about appeared in the sentence you are replying to? Your method of implicit refering to a randomly choosen object won't help you when talking to others, if you use the same method to read others comments you will likely miss-understand the entire statement.

>Your reply is full of rhetorical questions, putting words in my mouth, calling
>me a moron, and strawman arguments. It's amazing.

I call you a moron because you look like a moron, apparently you make efforts to not understand what you read, don't want to be called a moron? So focus your efforts on understanding what you are reading, if you choose random objects to fill references in others comments you will look as a moron, and be called such.