Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Not enough Cache for CPU's

Not enough Cache for CPU's

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Not enough Cache for CPU's

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
blackhawk1928   07-15-2009 at 07:43:05 AM

As we all know, the processor works much faster with its built in cache then the RAM, ram is slow and far away compared to the built in cache, so i was wondering, why does intel give the i7's only 8mb of cache when the the core 2 extremes had a max of 12mb? Why cant intel just make lets say, 3 version of an i7, one with a low cache for someone with a smaller lower budget, a higher cache for a mainstream guy and a high cache for someone who requires Xtreme performance. After all would'nt you want your services and processes as much as possible in your cache rather than you ram? IMO built in RAM/cache is the future, its way faster.

-Any thoughts?

-I know what cache is but can someone explain in more specifics whats L2 and L3 cache?

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
jimmysmitty   07-15-2009 at 08:59:09 AM
- 0 +

Well L2 is what Intel used to store processes that it could and not have to access the RAM thus reducing the use of the FSB to the RAM and giving greater performance. The L3 is essentially the same but in a Core i7 it also holds a copy of any processes that have been done so that if the CPU needs to do that same process again it will have a copy there to reduce time needed to access the RAM.

Now the Core i7 itself does not have as big of a L2 because it is not needed. QPI is so fast that it can communicate between the cores and to the RAM much faster than the FSB. In fact it puts out about 2x the memory bandwidth of a Core 2 Quad and even a Phenom II does and thats with the 4.8GBps one, not the 6.4GBps QPI.

So essentially, since a Core i7 can access memory so fast they do not need a super larger L2 cache. But I am sure the next gens will have one for other reasons since processes continue to grow.

But remember that cache does take up a lot of the space on a CPU and also creates a lot of heat as well. So conserving this would allow a company to add more features to a CPU as well as lower heat and power consumption.

------------------------------ http://www.steamcalculator.com/76561197970703804/camo_sig.png
 Reply to jimmysmitty
blackhawk1928   07-15-2009 at 01:55:23 PM
- 0 +

Well I do know about the QPI, it is quite a breakthrough, but in speed, its nothing comparable to its cache. Its like lets say memory is a scratch pad, and imagine your Ram as being a scrachpad, like on one side of the room and you are on the other, and with the cache, (it doesn't even have to be fast) its literally right infront of you, the speed you need to travel from one side of the room to the other is greater then using a scratch pad right infront of you, it results in much lower latency, even if its nanoseconds, or microseconds, its still faster, and easier for the processor to use, and I would like some conformation on my opinion about Cache being the future of computers. Any one agree?

Reply to blackhawk1928
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Not enough Cache for CPU's
Go to:

There are 1202 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.226 seconds
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them