Asymmetric Cache CPU

[lemonadesoda]

I would like to suggest that intel produces a quad core CPU, for the desktop market, with asymmetric cache.

Rather than having 4 cores with 3MB cache each (12MB total), there would be 2 cores with 6MB each and 2 cores with 1MB each. (14MB total... yes, I know its a bit more... but).

SHOCK. That would be great for a DESKTOP where there is typically one primary application running. It would require a setup utility, to "assign affinity" of specific .exe to the cores with the larger cache.

Of course, this doesnt make sense on a server, where the number of users/applications running is best automatically distributed across CPUs/cores. But for desktops/workstations there could be some merit in the approach...

AGREE? DISAGREE?

P.S. Some work "hotfix" might be required on the Windows Scheduler to be congnizant of asymmetric cache and therefore manage threads more cleverly.

[hat]

Naw. More and more things are becoming multithreaded. The future is not one mighty chip does it all, it's many chips do it.

[panchoman]

i like the L3 concept better..

[hat]

L3 is slow

[lemonadesoda]

Naw. More and more things are becoming multithreaded. The future is not one mighty chip does it all, it's many chips do it.Agree, but not all threads are equal. The cell processor has just ONE PPE (core) with a big cache, and 8 SPEs with their own smaller cache. Although cell is a completely different architecture, there are parallels with the concept in x86. When there are true "multithreaded" coded being executed, its usually a different type of code compared to regular monoline-application code, and, has a different optimal cache structure.

L3 is slow
Is slower and not very effective on Netburst (P4). But it is still faster and lower latency than DDR2. So it helps. L3 is typically workspace for data rather than instruction cache, and can, for these types of application, double performance. It just looks RUBBISH as an average improvement figure on normal desktop applications. Run a big fat stats package with hours of compute time, and you would change your mind.

[lemonadesoda]

Naw. More and more things are becoming multithreaded. The future is not one mighty chip does it all, it's many chips do it.the future is... silverthorne. JUST 2 MAIN CORES with 16 atoms. Intel is already going this way...

Oh, wait a minute. 2 main and 16 atoms. Thats 2x cell on one chip, only x86 architecture rather than power pc.

Penny drops.:cool:

Now I see what intel is trying to do. silverthorne isnt just the "next x86 CPU architecture", but a head-on-head with cell. One silverthorne = 2x PS3s sort of thing. Perfect for Xbox 20/20 (or however they brand the next one)?