> I don't have anything with 10MB cache. The link you provided was to three distinct models of i7 processors... all with 8MB of L3 cache. I would argue that 8M

> I don't have anything with 10MB cache. The link you provided was to three distinct models of i7 processors... all with 8MB of L3 cache. I would argue that 8MB isn't much smaller than 10MB, but I will understand if you disagree. However, even the slowest of those processors also has 1MB of L2 cache and 256KB of L1 cache, not to mention other "cache-like" memory in the form of renamed registers, completion queues, etc. At most, we're talking <800KB shy of 10MB in cache. > If you get into L1, you get about 1000x faster. I think you are making my point for me. > Maybe I have a different perspective? If a 600kb runtime is 1000x faster, I want to know what I get by being 10x bigger. You are assuming that at all times all of that 10MB must be touched by the processor at once. You can have a 10MB runtime where most of the cycles are being spent on a hotspot <4KB of data.... Having a hot spot that is orders of magnitude smaller than the full runtime is totally unsurprising. It's particularly true when your runtime has a JIT in it. With a JIT, most of the time, the bytes that are being executed aren't part of that 10MB, but rather are generated by it. Are you going to penalize your 600KB runtime for the size of the source code? ;-)