SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (40923)11/5/1998 9:56:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway  Respond to of 1573433
 
Ten re: "It's useless to make your L2 cache only twice the size of your L1; i.e. you have to go at least quadruple."

I guess THIS explains why AMD isn't going with an on chip L2 for K7 when it is first intro'd. AMD would need to put 512k on chip, which would make the die size huge (and make the chip too expensive to manufacture). So AMD has decided to wait for 18u, logically enough.

Kevin



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (40923)11/6/1998 1:18:00 AM
From: Brian Hutcheson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573433
 
Ten , you sure like twisting things to suit your own ideas .
E.G. "It is amazing how Celeron matches K6-2 with a smaller L1 size" .
Oh Yeh ! You conveniently omitted the fact that it has 128K L2 cache running at CPU speed vs no L2 cache on the K6-2 die .
Also only an Intel fanatic would claim that their chip was better because it had a smaller L1 cache .
Don't bother replying , I have got better things to do with my time .
Brian


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News