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: Scumbria who wrote (92886)	2/13/2000 7:17:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574466

Re: A victim cache behind a 2-way cache would be a very good combination, because the 2 way cache is casting out a lot of useful addresses- which would be stored in the victim cache. On the other hand, a victim cache behind a 16 way cache would be much less efficient because the addresses being cast out of the 16 way cache are less likely to be reused. That was basically the point that I was trying to make. The 16-way cache gives up 12.5% (2/16ths) of its useful capacity duplicating addresses in the 2-way cache - but the remainder of the 16-way cache acts as a psuedo victim cache, maintaining addresses cast out of the 2-way cache. Not as effective as a true victim cache, but possibly easier to implement? Dan