> If CPUs didn't need caches in the first place (i.e., RAM was faster than 
> the CPU) then this would be a total non-issue. But here in the real world, 
> it's sometimes faster to leave cores idling rather than risk upsetting the 
> Almighty Cache. How sad...

Yes, if we upset the Almight Cache, *shock* we might drop back to the 
performance levels of the fastest RAM available.  The cache is there to 
*speed up* stuff, I have no idea why you'd want a machine with a CPU running 
at the same speed as the fastest RAM available, you're then going to get the 
same levels of performance as if you upset the cache continuously!

Post a reply to this message