anon (anon@anon.com) on 4/22/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>I did not understand any of what you wrote.

I shouldn't have expected any better from you...

>My reply you quote here was your rhetorical question about Sandy Bridge, asking
>why it is "not the same" as Bulldozer, or something.

The previous sentence was about Power7, so the "not the same" question was comparing Power7 to SB, since it is too much to expect you to understand the question I'm not expecting an answear...

>You claimed BD's "memory and cache" subsystems are very good, and I pointed to
>one glaring example of where it is not very good.

You pointed to two specific metrics wich doesn't make it good or bad.

>It shows that L1 misses are frequent and costly.

It also depends on the behaviour of the core, if the core stall on every L1 misses frequent misses are very costly, even if you L2 latency is just 10 cycles, if the core continue working for many cycles after many L1 misses than the cost of each miss may not be so high even with a 20 cycle L2, also, cycles have different costs for different processors.

>I really don't know what you're talking about.

Expected.

>In my opinion, the problem is that you are incoherent, combative, and refuse to acknowledge my argument.
>
>BD has a small L1 and a slow L2.

And you refuse to acknowledge that this is a weak argument.

You could try to argue better, but with so "I don't understand/know" in your last post I doubt you will be able to.