Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:55 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: AMD L2 cache?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:26 am 
Smithfield*
Smithfield*
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:17 am
Posts: 7159
Location: In HyperTransport
Back when i started looking at purchasing a processor AMD had 64's up to 3400+ and the higher level ones all had 1MB L2 cache. Now with more models released some of them have a mere 512KB L2 cache. Why would AMD do this and does the 1MB have a big advantage over 512KB?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AMD L2 cache?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:53 am 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:48 pm
Posts: 241
Location: Whispering Evil Things in your ear...
gramaton cleric wrote:
Back when i started looking at purchasing a processor AMD had 64's up to 3400+ and the higher level ones all had 1MB L2 cache. Now with more models released some of them have a mere 512KB L2 cache. Why would AMD do this and does the 1MB have a big advantage over 512KB?


Yeilds.

If AMD makes a 1MB L2 cache CPU part os whose cache fails validation, they can just disable 1/2 of the cache and sell it as a 512K L2 model.

AMD is also making a straight 512KB L2 version of the Ath,on 64 (Newcastle) since it's die size is ~40mm^2 smaller, which increases the number of dies per wafer, increasing yeilds and therefore profits.

Plus, with the Athlon's cache architecture and the ODMC, the lack of cache hurts it far less than one would expect.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AMD L2 cache?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:26 pm 
Astro lube 2 the MAX!
Astro lube 2 the MAX!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:22 pm
Posts: 762
Location: Newton, KS
gramaton cleric wrote:
Back when i started looking at purchasing a processor AMD had 64's up to 3400+ and the higher level ones all had 1MB L2 cache. Now with more models released some of them have a mere 512KB L2 cache. Why would AMD do this and does the 1MB have a big advantage over 512KB?


For affordability. This would be their "low" line sorta cpus. If you don't got the big bux +400 bux, then you'll have to settle with a decrease in cache memory and lil' bit cheaper.

AMD already has another CPU that will replace Newcastle, with even a smaller core, less heat and cheaper.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group