Re: Athlon question revisited
- From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:00:43 GMT
David Kanter wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Let's keep asking, has anyone run similar Athlon X2 chips with 512k and 1M cache on a similar integer workload, and if so was there any measurable difference?
I'm looking at the 4{2,4,6}00+ chips trying to guess if the larger cache will reduce memory contention. If I read the description correctly all of the memory is on one core, so it should make a difference.
That's not right. The K8 dual core chips all have private caches, but share the memory controller, I/O and router. Much smarter than a shared package chip, but not as good as sharing your last level of cache, like the POWER4/5, SPARC-IV+, Fujitsu SPARC64-V/VI and Intel's next gen systems.
More than share the memory controller, does't the memory controller hang off one core and the other use a NUMA-like connection to access the RAM? But essentially the core are still competing for the same bandwidth to memory, however it's laid out.
I'm trying to determine if 1MB cache at 9% slower clock is more or less than a faster chip with 512k cache. Thought someone might have a benchmark.
-- bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center Project Leader, USENET news http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com .
- References:
- Athlon question revisited
- From: Bill Davidsen
- Re: Athlon question revisited
- From: David Kanter
- Athlon question revisited
- Prev by Date: Re: Athlon question revisited
- Next by Date: Re: Athlon question revisited
- Previous by thread: Re: Athlon question revisited
- Next by thread: Re: Athlon question revisited
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|