|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |