Hello and welcome to CertForums.co.uk, here we host free active certification forums with links to the best free resources for Microsoft's MCSA MCSE MCDBA Cisco's CCNA CCDA and CCNP, and CompTIA's A+ Network+ i-NET+ and Security+ certifications in the UK. If you wish to post or use other advanced features you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support

Go Back   CertForums > Certification Forums > CompTIA Certification Forums > A+
Home Forums Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

L1, L2 and L3 Cache's on CPU's

Post New ThreadReply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 21-Aug-2007, 01:29 PM
morph morph is offline
Premium Member
Posts: 137
Points: 169 morph has over 100 pointsmorph has over 100 points
Power: 7
None
Join Date: 12 Apr 2007
Location: UK London
Certifications: Network +, ITIL Foundation, CCENT
WIP: CCENT / CCNA
L1, L2 and L3 Cache's on CPU's

Just somthing i've been wondering, ovbiously the early cpu's didnt have L2 or L3 caches, whilst reading up about all this the more modern cpu's have an L3 cache, for example on the Intel Itanium 2 its got an L3 cache of 1.5meg-3meg whereas its L1 cache is 32kb - why isnt the L1 cache the biggest so the cpu goes there first? Or am i missing somthing ovbious (which wouldnt surpise me )

 
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 21-Aug-2007, 01:37 PM
Fergal1982's Avatar
Fergal1982 Fergal1982 is online now CertForums News Posting Member
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3,445
Points: 5496 Fergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 pointsFergal1982 has over 4000 points
Power: 98
None
Join Date: 04 May 2004
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Age: 26
Certifications: ITIL Foundation
WIP: Procastination+, Driving+
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache#Multi-level_caches
Larger caches have better hit rates but longer latency. To ameliorate this tradeoff, many computers use multiple levels of cache, with small fast caches backed up by larger slower caches.
So there you have it. Check out the rest of the article for more detailed information on the caches.


My Blog


Hecate Guides, but you dont hear me preaching about it!
"Im Nerdy in the extreme and whiter than sour cream"


 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 21-Aug-2007, 01:40 PM
greenbrucelee's Avatar
greenbrucelee greenbrucelee is offline
Premium Member
Posts: 11,155
Points: 3161 greenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 pointsgreenbrucelee has over 3000 points
Power: 147
None
Join Date: 21 Mar 2007
Location: Carlisle Cumbria
Age: 32
Certifications: A+, N+, 70-271
WIP: 70-272
Quote:
Originally Posted by morph View Post
Just somthing i've been wondering, ovbiously the early cpu's didnt have L2 or L3 caches, whilst reading up about all this the more modern cpu's have an L3 cache, for example on the Intel Itanium 2 its got an L3 cache of 1.5meg-3meg whereas its L1 cache is 32kb - why isnt the L1 cache the biggest so the cpu goes there first? Or am i missing somthing ovbious (which wouldnt surpise me )
When the cpu is using lots of bits of data the cpu needs to access the ram, but ram isnt fast enough so the CPU uses cache the Level 1 cache is the first one used then the 2nd then the 3rd.

The reason why the L1 cache is smaller than the L2 is because a smaller level 1 cache and a bigger level 2 cache make the cpu (pipelining etc) much more efficient


70-271,N+,A+,HND Business Computing, GNVQ Level 3 IT, NVQ Level 1 & 2 IT

Mobo: Asus Rampage Formula x48
CPU: Intel C2D E8400 @ 4GHz
HSF: Tuniq Tower
GPU: BFG GTX 260 OC2 Maxcore Edition
RAM: 4GB Geil Black Dragon 1066Mhz
CASE: Antec 1200
PSU: 700W Seasonic M12
DVDRW: LG 20x DVD Rewriter
HD1: 250GB Samsung Spinpoint
HD2: Samsung external backup drive 160GB
Display: 22" Samsung SyncMaster 2253BW

RIP UCM, your were always willing to help & will not be forgotten
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 21-Aug-2007, 01:54 PM
morph morph is offline
Premium Member
Posts: 137
Points: 169 morph has over 100 pointsmorph has over 100 points
Power: 7
None
Join Date: 12 Apr 2007
Location: UK London
Certifications: Network +, ITIL Foundation, CCENT
WIP: CCENT / CCNA
Thumbs up

ah ok cool ta

 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 21-Aug-2007, 02:07 PM
dmarsh dmarsh is offline
Veteran Programmer
Posts: 1,864
Points: 4965 dmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 pointsdmarsh has over 4000 points
Power: 71
None
Join Date: 24 May 2007
Location: The Ark
Age: 34
Certifications: One or two...
WIP: MS221
Firstly thats a very good question !

The not fast enough bit is to do with latency, however it could be possible to do away with some of the latency but that would up the cost.
The latency is related to how physically fast the memory and bus systems are, this is also affected by physical distance.
Faster memory and better bus connections cost more, thats why the caches get bigger and slower, its the best way to get the most bang for buck.
Much of the design of things in modern computing is to do with issues relating to latency, if the processor, memory and disk subsystems were closer matched then we
wouldn't bother with extra design features like level 3 caches.

The presence of the cache is also to do with the architecture, see Von Neumann bottleneck.

The cache levels also refer to how close they are to the processor. Level 1 cache is 'on-chip' cache, as such it uses up valuable real estate on the silicon. There are only so many transistors that can fit within a set area, transistor count is based on the size of the die and the size of the gates or density. The bigger the die the more waste as impurities will cause more faulty units and a lower yield. More transistors allow for more complex and powerful processors, so making the level 1 cache bigger could be detrimental to the overall design, as it would use transistors that could be used for other logic or lower the yield by increasing the die size.

Moores law covers alot of this, many people think they understand moores law as they have the media's attention deficit disorder definition, they generally don't.

Moores Law :-

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/moore.ars/3

Caches in general :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache

Design is the careful balancing of multiple forces or variables.

So on one level you are right, its just that your processor design would probably cost you £10,000, and it might not scale as well as 10 x £1000 processors !

Of course you can also pay for the extra complexity, it works fine on a SISD architecture, as soon as you bring in multiprocessor architectures you have cache snooping and cache coherency to deal with.



Last edited by dmarsh : 21-Aug-2007 at 09:03 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
Post New ThreadReply Spread this thread: Submit this thread to digg Submit this thread to del.icio.us


Go Back   CertForums > Certification Forums > CompTIA Certification Forums > A+


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CertForums.co.uk (C) copyright 2003-2007 All Rights Reserved. Content published on CertForums.co.uk requires permission for reprint.
Hosted by Lunarpages