AMD always preferred larger L1s with low associativity ; Intel went for small L1s with high associativity.I would assume the hit rate is larger on Intel's higher associative caches.Originally Posted by gosh
Intel choose based on extensive simulation a small but very fast L2.it had to be small because of the inclusive relationship with the L3.Results point out that their approach is outstanding performance wise.
Even so , there were serious debates inside Intel over the size of the L2s, many advocated a larger one.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...2808015436&p=1
That's the drawback of the inclusive approach ; using smaller L1/L2 is one fix to the problem.The other is to increase the size of the L3.What about redundant data in cache ?
Intel's is generally higher as can be seen from Aaron Kanter's review.What is the hitrate for the cache (assocativity) ?
They have the same die size.Given Intel's prowess in manufacturing I'd assume their yields are better.I don't have hard data on this , it is just a hunch based on past performance.Do you have any thoughts about manufacturing yields comparing i7 and DENEB
How so ? From all reviews , Nehalem stomps the desktop world with ease especially in multimedia benchmarks.It has superb all around performance.There has been some discussions on the internet that Intel did focus very much on servers with the i7 (performance), that was AMD's strong area where Intel was behind. With the i7 Intel may have been focused to much on server performance?
Once graphic drivers are optimized for it , it will increase its lead in games.
Gamers are 1% of the market.Barely relevant and Deneb still has to prove that it can beat Kentsfield/Yorkfield as the same clock.What AMD has done seems to be the opposite (if desktop is the opposite). I think they have some good news for gamers etc with this design for the deneb. Maybe Intel knows this and thats why they are releasing this type of information (let go of the NDA).
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks