Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Brian Hutcheson who wrote (42193)	11/25/1998 1:27:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) of 1572207

<When we consider that a Celeron without L2 cache was approx equivalent in performance to a K6 at two lower clock speeds and adding that cache increased performance to the point where the Celeron was slightly faster . Then it does not take a rocket scientist to realise that adding twice the size of L2 cache to an improved K6 core would result in a CPU that regained those 2 clock speeds at the very least> We've been through this before. The cacheless Celeron did not have the benefit of any L2 cache, not on the die, daughtercard, nor motherboard. The K6 and K6-2 has the benefit of an L2 cache on the motherboard, which helps a lot more than you think. Adding an on-die L2 cache to Celeron is going to help a lot more than adding an on-die L2 cache to the K6-2. Why? Because the improvement from no L2 cache to an on-die L2 cache will be greater than the improvement from a motherboard L2 cache to an on-die L2 cache. (That motherboard L3 cache on the K6-3 will be made irrelevant unless its size was increased to 1 MB, and even then, the benefit of the L3 cache isn't going to be all that great.) Tenchusatsu

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next