Intel kicking AMD to the curb?

[Tatsujin]

So considering that Core i7 has a small L Cashe (someone typed that from above) ... would it affect the processor or the speed it's choking on?

[kyanwan]

In fact, now that I check, AMD Phenom II X4 955 has double the L1/L2 cache of Intel Core i7 920, but less L3 (6MB on 955 vs 8MB on 920). Q9550 has half the L1 and double the L2 size of the X4 955.

I just looked at that and ...

Why the hell did someone give it a 1?   That person needs to be smacked.  XD

So considering that Core i7 has a small L Cashe (someone typed that from above) ... would it affect the processor or the speed it's choking on?

Cache is for pre-loading of code, predictive processing, and routines used by programs often.   It would speed up the program/threads currently in execution to have more cache available to it.  ( More code loaded directly in the CPU = much faster execution.   On-CPU cache is bounds faster than main memory. )

Depending on how the CPU handles it / manages it - it can have a performance effect. 

Obviously, Intel is handling it right - because there are no performance problems.   You see the benchmarks - those answer your question on "smaller" = "worse performance".  ( I see, that generally - Intels have a bigger cache than any AMD - go figure. )

NOTE though - the "code" to operate this, is hardwired INTO the CPU - it's "physical" - as in AND, XOR, and NAND gates burned right there in your CPU's silicon.

I'd also like to point out - that compared to the processors of long ago - the on-CPU caches we enjoy today - are GIANT - I'm talking we had in the past 64, 128, and 256K - if you were lucky.   1 & 2mb CPUs were over $1K ... in the not too distant past.

[Lupin]

Bigger cache is always better, especially cache that are much closer to the cores (L1). A larger cache means you can cram more data into it, reducing the time your processor needs to access your main memory. It will add to the cost of the processor though.

[kureshii]

So considering that Core i7 has a small L Cashe (someone typed that from above) ... would it affect the processor or the speed it's choking on?

From benchmarks, seems like it's not that big a concern yet

How much cache you can fit on a particular processor die really depends on how much space you have left after putting in the other stuff.


Techreport.com

That's an image from techreport showing the i7's die. Notice how much space is taken up by the 8MB L3 cache. There isn't much space for each core, let alone to squeeze in even 256kB of L2 cache (in the bottom-right corner of each core, I think). Intel's new direction for multi-core processors is to have smaller L1 and L2 caches (trying to find the exact article on Anandtech where they quote this from an interview with one of the Intel guys), and larger L3 caches instead. Here's an old link to Anandtech discussing this.

Large L1/2s make sense for processors with fewer cores, but as you scale up the number of processors you'll increasingly find that they need to access information that is only available on the caches of other cores (generally speaking, the L1/2 cache of each core is not accessible to the other cores. There are some exceptions, like the Core 2 Quad series where L2 was shared between 2 cores).

Accessing information on another core's cache takes a long time, so a more sensible solution would be to have a larger shared L3 cache, and smaller exclusive L1/2 cache. This explains why they made the L3 cache inclusive (i.e. L3 also contains data stored in L1 and L2).

Why the hell did someone give it a 1?   That person needs to be smacked.  XD

Most people who rate stuff 1 on Newegg are people who got DOA parts, lol. Dunno about his particular case; some of them are failed overclockers who vent their frustrations on Newegg, too.

[kyanwan]

I've so got to write another CPU emulator.   Just for the hell of it. 

( * Did something on the lines of a 4004 back in college - as an EE project. )

[dankles]

I've been a long time AMD fan. All of my custom home computers have been built on AMDs because I always seem to get great bang for my buck.
Though me using AMD is going to change because I use Linux and  I'm finding out that Intel does a better job at working with the Linux kernel team to get proper code submitted.

For that reason alone, I'm switching to intel for any new products I buy.

PS
I hope my underline doesn't look like trolling >_>

[Natheria]

PS
I hope my underline doesn't look like trolling >_>

Not trolling, just the linux fanboy in you.

[dankles]

PS
I hope my underline doesn't look like trolling >_>

Not trolling, just the linux fanboy in you.

Which sorta is trolling ^_^
But I'm ok with that.

[fohfoh]

PS
I hope my underline doesn't look like trolling >_>

Not trolling, just the linux fanboy in you.

Which sorta is trolling ^_^
But I'm ok with that.

Meh... water under the bridge... But that's your home too, right?

[kyanwan]

PS
I hope my underline doesn't look like trolling >_>

Not trolling, just the linux fanboy in you.

Which sorta is trolling ^_^
But I'm ok with that.

So what?  You're biased towards whichever chip suits your needs best. 

I'm biased to whichever chip gives a better cost/performance ratio.   From some numbers I've seen, it's a tie - with Intel just barely scraping ahead ... by $5 and a few percentage points of performance.   There is no real leader kicking anyone down in my books.

[fohfoh]

PS
I hope my underline doesn't look like trolling >_>

Not trolling, just the linux fanboy in you.

Which sorta is trolling ^_^
But I'm ok with that.

So what?  You're biased towards whichever chip suits your needs best. 

I'm biased to whichever chip gives a better cost/performance ratio.   From some numbers I've seen, it's a tie - with Intel just barely scraping ahead ... by $5 and a few percentage points of performance.   There is no real leader kicking anyone down in my books.

Yeah, but that difference is still what makes certain people argue. Kind of like a Honda vs Toyota debate.

"Liek the S2k is so much better than the Supra."
"Fuck you, a properly tuned Supra can beat a GTR and your shitty S2k any day."
"We use less gas"
"Our design is better!"
"We're easier to mod!"
"We have less fanboys!"
"We don't sound like a weed whacker when poorly modded!"
"We don't look like soccer mom slaves getting out of our vehicles!"

etc. etc. etc.

[kyanwan]

PS
I hope my underline doesn't look like trolling >_>

Not trolling, just the linux fanboy in you.

Which sorta is trolling ^_^
But I'm ok with that.

So what?  You're biased towards whichever chip suits your needs best. 

I'm biased to whichever chip gives a better cost/performance ratio.   From some numbers I've seen, it's a tie - with Intel just barely scraping ahead ... by $5 and a few percentage points of performance.   There is no real leader kicking anyone down in my books.

Yeah, but that difference is still what makes certain people argue. Kind of like a Honda vs Toyota debate.

"Liek the S2k is so much better than the Supra."
"Fuck you, a properly tuned Supra can beat a GTR and your shitty S2k any day."
"We use less gas"
"Our design is better!"
"We're easier to mod!"
"We have less fanboys!"
"We don't sound like a weed whacker when poorly modded!"
"We don't look like soccer mom slaves getting out of our vehicles!"

etc. etc. etc.

You have shamed us all.   I feel like a monkey now. 

[Zayras]

The kind of overclocking I consider worthwhile - is the stuff people did with the original athlons.  Elaborate cooling setups that run at around $100-200 - including nice water pipes with ferrofluid vs water, peltier coolers - etc.    50% minimum is what I consider "overclocking" into worthwhile territory.    Anything in the 20s and less - is just using your hardware smart - not - overclocking.

This is like running your old P1-100 at 133, just because it could.  ( 30% speed increase using nothing but crappy stuff that looks like your northbridge heatsink.   That chip was pretty good. )

These "safe" overclocks, that's not overclocking - that's being a wuss.      It's so safe - that some manufactures "pre-overclock" the stuff and slap a lifetime warranty on it.  

---

Laptops are trash, imo.   That thing's destined for the trash even before you buy it.   Only thing I'd ever buy in a laptop - is one under $400 - something I can throw up in the air, hit it with a baseball bat - and feel great after the fact.  ( or sell it for parts on ebay to some chump who repairs em. )

Well, I'm aware that overclock chat is over, but I overclock my hardware, but make sure I have good enough cooling for it and a stable clock, it really is worth the performance boost and honestly if your components are cool enough they should last you quite a few years. As for the water cooling, well actually no additive/fluid comes close to how cool water can keep your components except for Fesser 1, which is way more expensive than just going with some simple, old fashioned distilled water (can't seem to find the article). All you really need is a biocide and your set, fluids do make it a bit "safer" but even the non-conductiveness isn't as non-conductive as they'd like to make you believe and is not worth the price IMO.

& yeah, laptops are trash.