>> 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...]
> 
> And, most importantly, it is very close to the CPU.
> 
> It's a cost/benefit thing, for $X how do you make the fastest computer?  
> The answer is to have a big slab of slow RAM, and progressively smaller 
> bits of faster RAM.  Trying to do it another way will not make the 
> fastest machine for a given amount of money.

It just seems slightly crazy having a CPU that's hundreds of times 
faster than RAM, and using caching is a trick to try to hide this 
inescapable fact.

I wonder... if money was no object, *could* you actually have a 1GB L1 
cache?? Or is it actually not possible for some other reason?

Post a reply to this message