4 ms·
General rule of thumb is that bigger caches are slower to access. If AMD have traded a bit of access latency for their larger cache, then theoretically there w
by phire 6y ago
General rule of thumb is that bigger caches are slower to access.
If AMD have traded a bit of access latency for their larger cache, then theoretically there will be a memory heavy application with a working set that fits in 16MB that will see a preformance hit.
Though, we don't know Zen 2 was running into area based speed limitations for it's L3 cache. It's entirely possible Zen 3's cache runs at the same speed.
- shaklee3 6y agoSlower, but always faster than dram. So no, there are no downsides.
- wolrah 6y agoA larger but slower cache would be a downside for an application that did not need the extra capacity. Now it's cache accesses are slower with no gains anywhere else. Of course if you don't have enough memory at a given tier and are overflowing in to the next adding more will always make things better, but once you hit that point adding more just adds cost at best and might actually make things worse if it's slower for the extra capacity.
- Entalpi 6y agoThere are a bunch of downsides to large caches. Everything from access time to chip layout to latency and even power consumption. Everything cant be cache and be awesome.. :P