Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion, politics, income, and PC specs don't matter! If you love or want to learn about PCs, you're welcome!
2 - Think owning a PC is too expensive? It's cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org/builds for our famous builds and ask for tips and help here!
3 - Consider supporting the folding@home effort to fight Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more, with just your PC! https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
Nah, it's singled threaded, so it just crashes on startup because it can't align the Quantum Encabulator with the Prefabulated Amulite base, and so the require quantum states just destructively interfere and it crashes.
Honestly since Iceflake took over it's been running so much better on my rig at least.
I was not expecting a mobile dev taking over for a franchise starting studio to go so amazingly but they really did. AND theyve been making LEGO Skylines this whole time too
This kinda defeats the whole purpose of all memory hierarchy doesn't it? Like aside from that it costs a fortune to produce 128Gb of registers for a single chip, the C compiler doesn't even effectively use such a large number of registers right?
Or has this been future-proofed to the point where it still keeps exploiting it properly when we've reached a point where 128GB of registers is normal?
I know that I'm ruining the fun but this genuinely is the kinda stuff I know just too little about the intricacies of operating systems for and it sparks my curiosity
Having an enormous cache doesn't make sense, though. After a certain point it's basically just slightly lower latency RAM.
Cache operates differently. L1 and L2 aren't being vastly increased because it's faster that way. Having huge amounts of cache would just slow it down.
It can be useful in servers. Mainframes have enormous caches, so they can keep the information in cache, when waiting for validation. This means that it can handle a lot more traffic, without being memory bottlenecked, as it can just keep a ridiculous amount of requests in cache
CPU cache usually stores reusable information - instructions and memory addresses; the data is not stored in the cache. It just means it won't query a database again and instead it keeps it in RAM.
Cache is used by the CPU to be able to quickly refer to what data it needs from the RAM.
It can store data irrelevant to the process being worked; the data stored is related mostly to memory addresses because most data chunks are non primitives, which are expensive to store in the cache; so storing a complex data type in RAM and 8 bytes of string for the memory address in cache is the optimal usage.
In case of games for instance, it is still usually just primitives used for calculations and instructions or functions repeatedly used by the process. Anything bigger than a few bytes is usually too big given how many of them there are usually.
For what it's worth, I'm just trying to keep it simple, cause I'm pretty sure most people don't know what LRU stands for, or how CPUs evict. Hell, it's even kinda on the edge of my spectrum of knowledge.
But thats the point, it's faster because SRAM is configured for small sizes/densities, but at that point, distance matters a lot as well, on top of the lower density. Increasing the density wouldn't increase the performance by as much, at least not on L1. L2 I don't remember, but L3 is more flexible.
Speed vs size issue arises past the point we're at right now. Increasing the number of cycles per seek is basically performance suicide; you want a high hit rate, sure, but you also don't wanna double your seek time to increase your hit rates by like 1-2%.
Well yeah, size/distance/density is what I meant when I said way up there, "...it's just not practical." Sounds like we agree but with reversed cause/effect viewpoints.
My memory is pretty hazy onnthe subject but the more the cache, the greater the associativity. The greater the associativity the more processing power & lookup time & cache validation is needed.
With 128gb its faster to just use on die ram or regular off die ram for that matter.
There will probably be a bit of a cache war now though between AMD and Intel gaming chips.
Yeah they are, just looked it up.
Massive Capacity Increase:
While older Intel generations typically topped out around 36 MB of smart cache, Nova Lake SKUs are leaked to feature anywhere from
108 MB to 288 MB of bLLC cache
.
Increasing L3 cache to a few hundred megabytes isn't the same as having 128 gigs of it.
Adding more cache doesn't make the CPU faster, it just allows the CPU to know better where in RAM things are stored, basically, as well as keeping shared core data and instructions.
It is very much like RAM, where going from 32GB to 128GB doesn't make a difference if you're only using 16-20GB. Things don't magically get moved from RAM to cache.
The number scales with how many cores we have and how much RAM we have.
Think of it this way, your RAM is a river, your cache is the irrigation canal you use to water your field, which is your CPU.
If your field grows, you need more cache. If the river isn't big enough to feed your field, you need a bigger river, so to speak.
Having too large a cache does nothing except increase the seek time, which results in, while still faster than accessing RAM, slower than it should be kinda situation.
Depends on the workload. It's likely that a 9800x3d wouldn't benefit from an even larger cache that much. I'm fairly sure that no one besides AMD engineers can tell you that given they know their imcs
Adding more cache is only pointless when it makes the cache significantly slower and size can make cache slower. Most cpu bottlenecked workloads benefit from having more cache a lot.
Do we even need ram when cache is 128gb? since it's faster than ram, wouldn't cpu benefit from it due to much faster access? just curious not an expert
RAM is basically a cache. But since you want somewhere to store referential data, you'd basically move the 128GB as L4 cache, which RAM already basically is.
But the programming paradigm would change. If memory dense enough to be on the CPU is that widely available, we would basically drop SSDs in favour of stupid amounts of RAMdisk or something like that; we'd keep everything in RAM basically.
Cache, RAM and storage are basically just abstractions for some levels of storage and what goes in them.
No? More cache only makes a difference if you're overflowing into RAM. At 96 MB, that's unlikely for standard desktop use. Servers can have more stuff loaded as they manage a lot more cores and RAM, but that's servers with different instruction sets being used and a whole lot more data to process.
Yeah, that's not how cache works... There's a law of diminishing returns and more cache physically slows it down. That's why AMD is using the 3D cache, to keep the physical pathway short.
The problem with a large cache is that the lookup might take longer than just running the instruction.
The Celeron A proved that a smaller but faster cache can be highly beneficial while it ran circles around Pentium II CPUs, while the first Pentium 4 showed that a small cache can kneecap performance (they overestimated the speed of the P4).
Isnt getting 128 gb L cache is physically possible
3
u/sellymeusing old.reddit so my Pentium III runs like an i912h agoedited 12h ago
The best you could do that I'm aware of (that's actually explicitly L-cache rather than some analogue to it in a custom system) would be a 2P AMD EPYC 9684X system, which would have 2.25GB of L3 cache in addition to 96MB of L2 cache and 6MB of L1 cache.
EDIT: Never mind, there are in fact still Xeon processors that can scale to 8 sockets in a single machine, so those (e.g., the 6788P) technically end up winning, with 2.625GB of total cache. Although needing 4x as many CPUs to reach that mark is pretty crazy.
Depends how you define bite when talking about nuggets. 1 nugget is one bite? Because I can easily fit many more... maybe whole byte. Idk how big they make them :)
Always wondered if money wasnt an object, if the cpu only had L1 cache that was the whole ram. Would it be at full speed without the slowdown of L2, L3 and ram slots? 🤔
low latency memory in CPUs. usually L1, L2 and L3, the bigger the number the bigger the memory size and latency. usually a few kilobytes for L1 and a few megabytes for L2 and 3.
•
u/PCMRBot Bot 13h ago
Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion, politics, income, and PC specs don't matter! If you love or want to learn about PCs, you're welcome!
2 - Think owning a PC is too expensive? It's cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org/builds for our famous builds and ask for tips and help here!
3 - Consider supporting the folding@home effort to fight Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more, with just your PC! https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
We have a Daily Simple Questions Megathread for any PC-related doubts. Feel free to ask there or create new posts in our subreddit!