Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: cache




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    220

    Default

    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?
    Lostprophets-

    I've heard all your whining
    All this talk behind my back
    The time is coming
    The time is now for our attack
    A new sun rising
    A new one in your world of black
    Don't try to stop this
    You will break like glass

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    caves of bedrock
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    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 : asklepios20@jabber.org
    =======================
    Linux user since: April 24, 2003 312478
    yabaa dabaa doo...
    Customized for 1024x768

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    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.
    accessing data from the cache is much faster than anyting else available and the biggest reason it is not used as system RAM is the cost, the stuff is very expensive.
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cpt.Crappy
    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?
    Well would you rather have it search through the cache which runs at full speed (IE 3ghz processor, 3ghz cache) or have it run to the memory controller to search the RAM and then come back, all the while the memory is 5-10x slower?

    You can never have too much cache.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    Why do you think the 2mb cache chips are so much more than 256kb ones?
    Cache is like Mr.Fusion for your system!!!!!! :geek:

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    220

    Default

    sweet **** guys. thanks.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •