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