Why don't they make CPUs with 16GB of super fast cache instead of this bullshit bottleneck ddr4 RAM?
What are they, poor?
No, YOU are poor so they know they can't get any money selling them.
>>55391696
>why dont they make $50,000 cpus and sell them to the general public
>this is a good business strategy
>>55391696
>i don't have any idea how expensive 512mb of l3 cache even is, let alone 16gb of l2 or even l1
how about you get back to >>>/v/ or try >>>/google/ before looking like a fool?
>>55391711
This. Also, 512MB of cache would be more than enough for almost any desktop purpose.
Because that shit's fucking expensive and there's no real benefit to having 1TB/s memory. In fact 1333 MHz single channel DDR3 RAM (10.6GB/s) is good enough for 99% of things a typical user will do.
Only real reason to get faster RAM is because you have an APU. Since the APU uses system ram as vRAM, faster RAM means more FPS in vydia to an extent.
>>55391696
Look up the computer memory hierarchy. The rank from fastest to slowest can also be remapped as most expensive to cheapest.
>>55391696
1. the bigger the memory the bigger the latency so 16GB of cache won't be as fast as the L1 cache in your cpu
2. sram is many times more expensive than dram
3. today's caches already have a hitrate of ~90%
>>55391770
HEI distributor cap on the front??
>>55391696
OP I support you.
I want to be able to fall for the super fast 16 GB cache meme.
>mfw I see the serious reply this thread is getting
posted from a 1024 core AMD with 1TB L1 cache
>>55391830
>shitposting expecting shitposting back
gee, it's like shitposting isn't even a bannable offense
>hello summer my old friend
>i have come to talk to you again
>>55391937
Only summerfags call other people summerfags 2bh. Been here since 2009 btw <3 ;^)
>hur why don't they just make fast computers instead of this bullshit slow computers duh le xd
>>55392121
My thoughts exactly!
>>55392106
this
>>55391937
see pic related
>>55391696
Why don't we just do away with RAM and Cache completely and just have 250,000,000 registers instead?
Oh wait, pic related is why, it would cost you Donald Trump's net worth
>>55394149
pic related
>>55391696
That Die would be ridiculously huge
>>55391790
>the bigger the memory the bigger the latency
Boys dont forget this
>>55394225
Increasing capacity doesnt mean its gonna keep the same speed
>>55394166
it all makes sense now.
>>55391696
but this exactly what Intel did for the past 6 years
Why don't we have CAM(Content-addressable memory) instead of registers and caches? And if the CAM lookup fails the RAM is searched instead, which will be transparent for programs. This way we wouldn't have to do with such bullshit as
>addressing modes
>addresses at all, and dependence on their length for programs
>register renaming
>limited amount of registers, specialized registers
Other pros:
>realized purely in hardware
>vastly simplified memory hierarchy
>program variables could be mapped almost directly to the CAM
>>55391696
because they have fundamentally different uses, it's ultra-expensive and latency grows with capacity
