| ▲ | spockz 8 hours ago | |||||||||||||
I think GP was saying that the additional 3D cache on this chip compared to the standard x3d isn’t going to do much. I’m curious to see whether the same benchmarks benefit again so greatly. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | adrian_b 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
On AMD the L3 cache is partitioned between the 2 chiplets. So for 9950X3D half of the cores use a small L3 cache. For applications that use all 16 cores, the cases where X3D2 provides a great benefit will be much more frequent than for a hypothetical CPU where the same cache increase would have been applied to a unified L3 cache. The threads that happen to be scheduled on the 2nd chiplet will have a 3 times bigger L3 cache, which can enhance their performance a lot and many applications may have synchronization points where they wait for the slowest thread to finish a task, so the speed of the slowest thread may have a lot of influence on the performance. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | bell-cot 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
> I think GP was saying... Agree. The article's 2nd para notes "AMD relies on its driver software to make sure that software that benefits from the extra cache is run on the V-Cache-enabled CPU cores, which usually works well but is occasionally error-prone." - in regard to the older, mixed-cache-size chips. > I'm curious to see... Yeah - though I don't expect current-day Ars Technica will bother digging that deep. It could take some very specialized benchmarks to show such large gains. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||