| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Small correctionSmall correctionPosted Oct 2, 2007 8:35 UTC (Tue) by nowster (subscriber, #67)In reply to: Small correction by khim Parent article: Memory part 2: CPU caches
What you're describing is latency, not throughput. They're two different measurements of "speed".
(Log in to post comments)
Small correction Posted Oct 3, 2007 2:36 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] He knows.
The thing about memory is that latency kills your processing throughput. If the CPU needs the data and it isn't available then the thread stalls until it becomes available. There's various techniques which can sometimes hide this problem, which is what this section of course is largely about.
In the context of making memory which does require cache (the topic of the post), the speed that matters is necessarily latency.
|
|
||||||||||||