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: kash johal who wrote (83682)	12/20/1999 3:37:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572208

Re: "Looks like spitfires will have 64KB of L2 cache on chip." Doesn't that seem very very odd? EP

To: kash johal who wrote (83682)	12/20/1999 3:42:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572208

Kash - RE: "Looks like spitfires will have 64KB of L2 cache on chip." That's weird.. Spitfire will still have more on-chip cache than Cumine-128. People who know what they are talking about (Scumbria!) can you comment on what could be the strategy (other than lower die size) behind this weird L2 being smaller than the L1 cache? Ace's was talking about Exclusive cache, but when they talked about it they expected L2 = L1 size.