|
|
|
|
|
by crististm
3600 days ago
|
|
Yes. I don't know where he gets the idea that a large L1 cache is to a CPU the same as a 150mx150m desk to a human. Address decoding is done in parallel, not sequentially. And desks are as large as people are comfortable to produce and use. Likewise, if the RAM would be as cheap to produce as SRAM like it is as DRAM, it would be as fast as the CPU (since it is using the same technology as the CPU) and we would not need the cache at all. Imagine gigabytes of L1 cache! |
|
First, the larger your cache the more layers of muxing you need to select the data you need, meaning more FO4s of transistor delay.
Second, the larger your cache the physically bigger it is. That means more physical distance between the memory location and where it is used. That means more speed of light delay.
And third there's the issue of resolving contention for shared versus unshared caches.
So despite the fact that you're using the same SRAM in both your L1 and L3 but access to the former takes 4 clock cycle but access to the later takes 80.