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 (37014)	9/14/1998 2:04:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570734

Ten, your points are mostly valid, except this one: An extra 512K of L3 cache should cost only $45 Most Super 7 motherboards already have 1Meg of L2 cache, which is automatically L3 cache when a K6-3 is in the motherboard. At most, this extra cache costs $10. I agree that 41% more L2 cache misses is a better assumption than my 20%. (The "square root of cache size ratio" is born out by the Celeron-A's where the four-times-smaller L2 running at twice the speed results in equivalent performance.) But I think a 50% hit percentage in the L3 is pretty reasonable, given a 4:1 ratio of cache sizes. I'll rerun the numbers with these assumptions. L2 cache speed is very important in the K6 architecture. Just moving the L2 cache speed up to 112 MHz from 100 makes a jump from 29.1 to 31.0 in Winstone 98 performance (see cpu.simplenet.com. This is about equivalent to one Pentium II speed grade, but is partly due to overclocking the PCI/AGP bus. Still, a 300% jump in L2 cache speed (100 MHz to 400 MHz) will make a BIG difference. Petz