| |||||||||||||
Bigger caches ? Where ?Bigger caches ? Where ?Posted Feb 12, 2008 22:51 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Bigger caches ? Where ? by zlynx Parent article: vmsplice(): the making of a local root exploit Moore's law is still valid: transistors on a chip are doubling every 18 months. However clock speeds are not getting any faster; my old PIV was running at 3.2 GHz, and you seldom see those speeds nowadays. So guess where many (if not most) of all those extra transistors are going. Yep, into the caches.
(Log in to post comments)
Bigger caches ? Where ? Posted Feb 13, 2008 20:23 UTC (Wed) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link] In mainstream consumer CPUs, maybe the clocks have stabilized (which IS a good thing, we already waste too much power just to do office work). Look at the IBM Power6 for some high-clock cores...
Bigger caches ? Where ? Posted Feb 21, 2008 9:53 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link] >Look at the IBM Power6 for some high-clock cores... Except that apparently they had a lot of difficulty ramping up the clock.. Plus their CPU does *in order* integer processing which induce a loss of efficiency.. It'd be interesting to have a study which analyse whether going in order for integer processing to increase the clock really did improve performance or if it was just a marketing gimmick a la P4.
Power 6 clock high-score and real performance Posted Feb 23, 2008 17:14 UTC (Sat) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] It'd be interesting to have a study which analyse whether going in order for integer processing to increase the clock really did improve performanceTake a look at SPEC CPU 2006 results. Last I looked, a 4.7GHz Power6 had similar speed to a 3GHz Core 2 Duo 6850 in both SPECint2006 and SPECfp2006 results.
|
|||||||||||||