scott wrote:
>> 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.

I meant that it's sad that we don't have RAM that can perform as fast as 
the CPU itself.

[Or rather... I guess we do, since that must be what they make the L1 
cache out of. But the L1 cache is tiny, so...]

Post a reply to this message