| To: | riscy@pyramid.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: R4xxx Cache size, pedantic ramblings |
| From: | Drew Eckhardt <drew@romeo.cs.Colorado.EDU> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Aug 1993 03:51:24 -0600 |
| In-reply-to: | Your message of "Tue, 10 Aug 1993 11:08:48 +0200." <9308100908.AA09361@liberator.et.tudelft.nl> |
| Reply-to: | riscy@pyramid.com |
| Sender: | owner-riscy@pyramid.com |
--------
Compare to R4000:
6. All instructions are 32 bits.
This has nothing to do with caches.
Indirectly, it does.
I should have been more specific here : specifically, I was
getting at the lack of variable sized instructions forcing the
instructions to be bigger (ie, 32 bits for the R4000 vs. 8,16, etc.
for the i486) meaning the R4000 will have larger code and will
therefore require a larger cache to maintain the same hit-rate.
I should have generalized more and said
"RISC chips have bigger code than CISC chips, and therefore will
need larger caches to have the same hit rate"
--------
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: R4xxx Cache size., Drew Eckhardt |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Second level cache?, Drew Eckhardt |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: R4xxx Cache size, pedantic ramblings, Rogier Wolff |
| Next by Thread: | Please remove me from the list, Bob Green |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |