--snip-- > > Where I disagree with you is (3). Whether or not cache size is important > depends on the size of the job. If your iterating through data-parallel > loops over a large dataset that exceeds cache size, the opportunity to > reread cached data is probably limited or nonexistent. As we often say > here, "it depends". I'm sore someone with better low-level hardware > knowledge will pipe in and tell me why I'm wrong (Cunningham's Law). >
Of course it all depends. However, as core counts go up, a fixed amount of cache must get shared. Since the high core counts are putting pressure on main memory BW, cache gets more important. This is why AMD is doing V-cache for new processors. Core counts have outstripped memory BW, their solution seems to be big caches. And, cache is only good the second time :-) -- big snip-- -- Doug _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit https://beowulf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
