Welcome, Guest. Please Login 3dfx Archive
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
XGI Volari (Read 474 times)
FalconFly
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


3dfx Archivist

Posts: 2445
5335N 00745E
Gender: male
Re: XGI Volari
Reply #15 - 17.12.03 at 11:22:56
 
Indeed, large on-board (Motherboard) Cache is actually something I really miss...

That would be a nice buffer between the slow RAM, and the (comparably) lightning fast CPU's.

(I can only speculate that the CPU manufacturers do not want this, because it would tend to 'blend' the effective performance of their different CPU lines, which they so far carefully placed into their respective price segments)
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Micha
Senior Member
****
Offline


Got milk?

Posts: 317
Gender: male
Re: XGI Volari
Reply #16 - 17.12.03 at 14:32:22
 
see, i'm just happy there's no cache anymore on mobos...that was so slow. indeed, l3 cache on the mb wouldn't make a real sense since the main ram has at least synchronous frequencies..
Back to top
 

AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05
WWW  
IP Logged
 
FalconFly
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


3dfx Archivist

Posts: 2445
5335N 00745E
Gender: male
Re: XGI Volari
Reply #17 - 17.12.03 at 23:07:46
 
Hm ?

Whenever I disabled the L2 (or L3) Cache of Super7-Motherboards, performance would always drop by as much as 25-40%...

With fast L3 Cache, you can still increase performance quite significantly, and all professional Workstations or Servers for example always sport very large Caches for that reason (not neccessarily located on the CPU itself).

I operate 2 DEC Alpha 21164's, one with 4MB Cache (on Motherboard), while the other has none.
The Result is, that the machine with the 4MB is about 90% (!) faster than the one without it in Memory-intensive Situations...

The old rule is still valid :
Cache is life ! Wink

The more, the better, since Memory still remains by far the slowest Link in all modern machines, drastically hampering the CPU...

Since you mentioned "synchronous" Frequencies :
That's true for the (slow) FSB, but even at 200MHz DDR (400MHz effectively), a 2000MHz CPU is doomed to spend more than 4 out of 5 cycles waiting for the Memory to deliver.

In terms of Programming, a single "Cache Miss", or (even worse) a pipeline Stall, forcing it to re-aquire alot of Data directly from RAM, is regarded as the worst performance catastrophy possible for a CPU.

Also, Latencies are still a major factor, since even the best PC400 Modules can barely deliver more than a short burst of Data at its maximum speed. The remaining time, it has to waste time itself to Refresh Cycles, CAS latency, RAS-to-CAS delays etc. etc...
------------
Bottom line is :
For as long as a 2000MHz CPU cannot access RAM clocked at 2000MHz, CL0-0-0, there will always be the need for Cache.

PS.
If your BIOS allows to disable L1 and L2 Cache, try to have some fun disabling both. Then, the CPU is entirely limited to RAM performance...
You will be in for a big surprise, no matter what CPU you test, and no matter how fast your RAM is Wink

That's a really nice eye-opener about actual, true RAM performance, compared to what the CPU could actually do if this limit wouldn't hold it back all the time *g*
Back to top
« Last Edit: 17.12.03 at 23:11:41 by FalconFly »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Micha
Senior Member
****
Offline


Got milk?

Posts: 317
Gender: male
Re: XGI Volari
Reply #18 - 19.12.03 at 12:11:43
 
you're right in most cases.
and yes, i can disable l1&2 cache by my bios but i don't have do so 'cause i know what'll happen  Wink
about l3 cache: would be useful at least on the die. remember amd's k6-3 which had 64kb l1 and 256kb l2 on die? you may know, it wasn't necessary to this cpu if you had 512 or 1024 kb l3 cache on board, there wasn't any (real) performance boost (so it doesn't seem to depend on the l3 cache size).
here we come to the heat problem again - as we know, a cpu with much cache runs very hot..i wonder how the intel xeon/p4EE both with 2mb l2 cache (as they have simply the same core  Wink ) don't run too hot to cool 'em.
nevertheless, it would be more useful to run l3 cache at higher frequencies than FSB/HT-Link, that'll bring still better performance.
Back to top
 

AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05
WWW  
IP Logged
 
FalconFly
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


3dfx Archivist

Posts: 2445
5335N 00745E
Gender: male
Re: XGI Volari
Reply #19 - 19.12.03 at 13:24:35
 
I did own a K6-III System, and (as I said) the Performance would drop significantly without the L3 Cache.

Of course, this is only valid for Application Routines that don't fit inside the Cache, but most Applications are really happy to have 512k to 1024k nowaday's, and more Cache doesn't hurt either.

I agree, though, that having it run On-Die is the ideal way of doing it, yet it's the most expensive way, making CPU's more difficult to build...

If there was any Athlon Chipset with L3-Cache, I would immediately buy it !
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print