From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 11 11:13:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA08471 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [199.184.181.250]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08465 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from right.PCS (right.pcs. [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA00862; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:23:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id NAA06429; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:13:06 -0500 Message-ID: <19970411131306.11780@right.PCS> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:13:06 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon To: John Utz Cc: Michael Hancock , Darren Reed , Terry Lambert , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 430TX ? References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.61.1 In-Reply-To: ; from John Utz on Apr 04, 1997 at 09:46:26AM -0700 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Apr 04, 1997 at 09:46:26AM -0700, John Utz wrote: > > my instructor claims they separated the cache into instruction > cache and data-cache.....a previously 'discredited' architecture known to Discredited? Since when? All other things being equal, separate I+D caches almost always outperform merged caches. > traditional 'von neumann' or 'princeton' architecture.... is cache space > relatively cheap these days? Memory (and hence caches) have gotten much cheaper recently, but that doesn't mean that multiplying the size of your cache is instantly going to give you improved performance. -- Jonathan