Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (61172)	6/9/1999 7:50:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572635

<Why do you discount the PIII vs Xeon comparison?> Which one? There are so many comparisons thrown left and right on this thread, it's hard to keep track. Anyway, it's no secret that an on-die cache will have lower latency than even Xeon's full-speed off-chip cache. I think Microprocessor Report once said that the L2 latencies of different P6 processors are: Celeron: 8 processor clocks Xeon: 12 processor clocks Pentium II: 18 processor clocks I would also guess that latencies of off-chip caches may increase slightly as the clock speed increases, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentium III 550 MHz had an L2 latency of 20 clocks. I don't know about on-die caches, though, nor do I know the impact of larger L2 cache sizes on latency. As for Dixon vs. mobile Deschutes performance, it wouldn't surprise me if the mobile Deschutes has a slightly lower L2 latency than a 550 MHz Katmai (Pentium III) because of the slower clock. It also wouldn't surprise me if the Dixon has a slightly higher L2 latency than Mendocino Celeron because of the larger cache. But all this is very hard to figure out without knowing the confidential stuff that the Intel performance guys know. Tenchusatsu