Barcelona Launch Clock Speeds Changing?

[StealthyFish]

Current Intel Processors doesn't use an L3. SO if you meant L1 and L2, sure. It's kind of hard to talk to these guys when they put their love for AMD in front of common sense. I've seen AMD Fans call other AMD Fans Intel fans because they did repeat AMD's spin.

Now since Intel's and AMD architectures are different, Cache dependence, the Amount of Cache and even the way the cache is setup (Inclusive-Exclusive) is different for each company as well. I believe each is using what's best for them. Small fast is good for Intel just as a larger L1 is better for AMD. Intel tried L3 and got mixed results on the desktop. Another example, read up on L1/L2 cache ECC or error correction and tell me if you still think AMD's way is the best way to do it?

K10 will not only need a smarter Pre-Fetch as the other guys mistakenly still don't get. Even after linking these same 3 Hardcore AMD fans to what Smart Cache and Smart Memory access was, they still didn't get it. It will matter for K10 as well if AMD doesn't improve on its Dumb Memory Access, K10 will not Gain that much. Meanwhile how blocks of memory is stored, how that stored memory is accessed and even the speed of access will only get better for Intel.

Well, I'm just comparing L2 and L3 together. L1 is considerably less latency than L2 or L3, for Intel and AMD. No way should L1 even be near a latency of 10, otherwise, it'd be pointless. Intel currently doesn't use L3 for their consumer products, but they have perfected their L3 to almost L2 standards (if you've seen intel's itanium server products like the montecito, you can't deny that intel hasn't been working on L3), and that is a very large benefit for intel processors as they can load more cache to the processor and distance itself away from the core farther while suffering very little performance loss due to greater latencies. I've noticed AMD has been saying a lot about their L3 cache, but with the latencies that I've seen, it doesn't look to assist in gaining processor performance. These technologies you mention may assist in that, but like I've said, I don't know much about them, so it'd be fruitless (and quite retarded), for me to argue with you on that point (or anyone else for that matter). That does make sense though. I was stating that despite the architecture differences, processors would benefit from lower latency cache. Kind of like processor frequencies. doesn't matter what the architecture is, the higher clocked the processor, the better performance it will output (though the amount it will increase will be discriminatory).

But I think before we continue this discussion, more research would have to be made. If we're going to base most of our information on assumptions, we might as well be a bunch of [h]ardforum noobies having a dumb flamewar.