Snale

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2006
58
0
18,630
Nice: this means really BIG and EFFICIENT cache memory :p
Will this become another step in the memory acces procedure, or will it just take over todays cache systems??
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
1
25,780
Of course the question is, how will this really make any difference? I mean lets face it, more cache only went so far for AMD. The performance gains really dropped off at a point. :?

So will five times more cache make any actual difference? I doubt it.

And will likewise reducing the die size while keeping the same amount of cache help the thermal transfer? Again, nope.

So while it is an interesting technology, unless it's to add an L3 cache on server chips or something for bragging rights, I can't really see this being the neato-keen benefit that it looks like at first glance.
 

mpasternak

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2005
533
0
18,980
as i said. 1 gig of on die memory :p

pipedream i know. but lets look at it this way.

RAM is basically an extension of the Cache right? cache is just really small because on die it's hard to make and it's expensive. you have limited cache now and you substitute it with LOTS of RAM. RAM itself is really just a cache of sort, just off chip. but being OFF chip it's slower than existing on chip caches.

(anyone else remember the day of L2 cache modules for motherboards?). all that happened in the meantime is that L2 cache has now gone On chip to make it even faster and easier... well, maybe this is the future for L3. RAM. put 128mb of L3 cache / RAM right on the chip die. no need for memory reaching or long waiting for the memory to feed the CPU