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 (53192)	3/22/1999 4:58:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583275

Scumbria, I think you mean well, but you are talking rather ignorantly. <Alpha was a "screamer" and PPC, M1, K6, P6 went the way of the "super-brainers".> Comparing the P6 to the K6, I see, even though the P6's pipeline is as long as the K7's? <now everyone is using the Alpha approach. This is evidenced by the microarchitecture of K7, Willamette, and M3.> I don't know anything about the M3, but I don't think Willamette should even be in the same boat as the K7. Trust me, Willamette is a beast. (Translate "beast" any way you want.) Tenchusatsu

To: Scumbria who wrote (53192)	3/22/1999 5:25:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583275

Scumbria, I understand what you mean about cramming a lot of logic between clock cycles, vs. running a chip at a higher clock speed with less logic per cycle, and the tradeoffs between the two philosophies. OK, but if you go too far with the latter, the overhead, or lost time in each clock cycle for setup time of latches, can result in the law of diminishing returns taking over. Assuming an all synchronous design, before every clock strikes, you have to ensure all switching has settled, or long path failures occur. To the extreme, if you allowed, e.g., only one combinatorial level between clocks (wouldn't get much done), setup time would become a large part of the cycle, and all of it is wasted. This isn't done, of course, but it's just to emphasize that going too fast is wasteful also. Not easy to express the above in words. A picture or a whiteboard and marker would be much better. Still, I don't get how, given two designs that have reasonably close clock speeds, the one with a three cycle cache access is better than one with two. 'Splain? Tony