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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (106773)	4/19/2000 9:34:00 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574093

RE:Thread, just FYI regarding Celeron: The 0.18u Celerons isn't just a Coppermine with half the cache disabled, according to Anandtech: anandtech.com Basically, Coppermine-128 (the 0.18u Celeron) has half the cache as Coppermine-256. Also, the L2 cache on Cumine-128 is 4-way set-associative, instead of 8-way. Furthermore, for some reason or other, the L2 latency on Cumine-128 is longer than Cumine-256. I don't know why. I think Anand may be wrong about this. I think if you disable half the cache that could effect the associativity depending on how you disable it. Tim

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (106773)	4/19/2000 10:42:00 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574093

Tench, re:<slower CuMine 128> Do you think, other than the smaller cache, that some of this slowdown is intentional and could easily be changed if Intel saw more competition in the mid-range? (READ: Spitfire is coming!). Maybe just a firmware change and the latency penalty goes away, but I doubt 4 way vs 8 way can be changed. What do you think? Petz