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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (162789)	3/22/2002 1:40:07 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: this is the first time you brought this up, how could you say I "keep ignoring" it. If our places were reversed, you'd post "liar" in bold italics: The cache controller uses the LSBs - least significant bits to determine which cache locations need to be checked. It uses the end of the address, the last few bits, as an index or hash code. So, if a PC had a 4-way cache with 256 locations, the cache would basically be divided into 4 pieces, each of which could store 64 locations. It would effectively divide the main memory into 64 blocks, each of which could have, at most, 4 locations stored. So for any address ending in ******11 0000, say 01101100 11110000, or 01101100 12110000, there are only 4 cache locations available to store that information. This wouldn't matter all that much, except that memory is generally allocated by the operating system in blocks with the same LSBs, and modern OSs and programs taking advantage of object oriented design are loaded as many small modules, each of which is allocated a block (or blocks) of memory by the OS - which often start at the same LSBs. So, particularly on complex or server applications, P4 (and Xeon, and Xeon MP), even with a very large 8-way cache, is going to be thrashing some of its cache locations long before Athlon, even if Athlon's 20-way cache is smaller. A discussion of cached designs is here: pcguide.com; Saturday, Mar 16, 2002 3:39 PM Message 17206923

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (162789)	3/24/2002 3:49:34 PM
From: Gary Kao	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

thread: Compaq AMD-based notebooks overheating!!! A worthwhile nugget from an Inquirer.net article about recent Compaq supply problems. What a mismanaged company! That includes selecting a family of chips infamous for running hot for their notebooks...what was Compaq thinking? This suggests to me that the HWP-CPQ merger will be disastrous for the two, but overall neutral or even beneficial for Intel. from: theinquirer.net Arggh… a CompUSA like disaster. The Best Buy chain has replaced Compaq networking product with Netgear and Linksys branded goods, reports Best Buy in Sterling. And over at Cary, some customers with 715US notebooks are saying that they're overheating and locking up. Is this normal, the sales folk want to know. Brentwood. "The store was rather slow and the employees seemed disinterested in what I had to say". No spiffs, guys? The Antioch branch reported that the 710 notebook is overheating all the time and keys just come off. But it loves the Ipaq. Info about the CPQ models in "question": athome.compaq.com