just random question. i know having a big cache is good. but isn't it true the more the cpu has to search, the longer it takes? so is it better to have a big cache or a smaller one that the cpu can "look" throught faster?
No announcement yet.
cache
Collapse
X
-
imo having a 256KB, 512KB or even 1MB of cache for that matter would never make your CPU slower. i mean simply thinking abt it, what would be slower...fetching data from RAM or from an on-die cache that a CPU has itself. if you would think on same grounds then 32MB RAM should be faster than 1GB one but then same thing comes here, fetching data from HD is slower. i hope more people will put more points :)Latest Microsoft Security Updates.
Last Updated: 10th MARCH
If you are a security freak: Use Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (NT/2000/XP/2003)
======================
icq : 203189004
jabber : [email protected]
=======================
Linux user since: April 24, 2003 312478
yabaa dabaa doo...
Customized for 1024x768
-
I'm too lasy to type it all, so I'm just going to copy and paste what I said in another thread:cache is small amounts of super-fast memory on the cpu used to store commonly used insructions. The barton core doubles the amount of cache that the t-bred core used, thus theoretically speeding up the cpu by allowing faster access to more commonly used instructions. This can have a big effect in games since the same insructions are used over and over again.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cpt.Crappyjust random question. i know having a big cache is good. but isn't it true the more the cpu has to search, the longer it takes? so is it better to have a big cache or a smaller one that the cpu can "look" throught faster?
You can never have too much cache.
Comment
Comment