Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Jun 2010 21:33 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 427661
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-02
Aren't you confusing them with IBM? I'm pretty sure Intel is just really good at making small cheap SRAM.
On top of that, even eDRAM would leave them with the problem of having to have a royal caravan of RAM slots--it would only make the size of cache cheaper. eDRAM is still no performance match for SRAM.
However, even with SRAM caches, workloads that can crunch on moderate sizes of data that can be fit into a shared cache might be able to work very fast, without jacking up the RAM bandwidth. If Intel needed to, I'm sure they could do 32+MB SRAM caches on a die, and still make their high margins.
Edited 2010-06-02 04:09 UTC