Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by ori_b | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ori_b·

The problem is that as cache size gets bigger, the associative memory lookup gets slower. There's a tradeoff.

View on HN

What? Why is this, isn't memory indexed for direct access?

We're talking about cache, where the addresses of blocks in cache do not have a 1:1 mapping with addresses in memory.

Read the section on associativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache

You get to choose your associativity, you could build a direct-mapped 1GB L1 cache if you wanted. More fundamentally, a memory's access time grows with its capacity because the average and worst-case distances from a bitcell to the read/write port are longer.

If you pack enough memory in the same package and connect it to the CPU through a bus that's fast enough, on-chip memory that used to be used for caches can get promoted to main memory and off-chip RAM becomes a fast cache for your SSDs and a way to synchronize context between different chip stacks.

Put the GPU and VRAM on the stack and all you need is a couple HDMI ports going out of the chip.

Cache is already about as fast as you can get without significant compromises in size. L1 cache runs at speeds fast enough that increasing the size (and average seek time), or increasing the distance the signal has to travel, will decrease access times significantly. So it doesn't become about how 'fast' the bus is, or how much memory you can pack on.

Putting a good chunk of memory between the processor and the external memory bus would allow interconnection through a much faster bus than the external one, reducing the penalty of a cache miss.

The two of you are arguing about different things. You are arguing the point of increasing cache to reduce misses. The other guy is arguing that increasing cache size will degrade cache performance as a unit. These are distinct arguments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com