how can a newer processor have worse L1 cache?

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!news.osn.de!diablo2.news.osn.de!news2.arglkargh.de!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news
From	Anne Onime <anonymous@rip.ax.lt>
Newsgroups	comp.sys.intel
Subject	how can a newer processor have worse L1 cache?
Message-ID	<2ea0be0202d503e5e069233f5585410b@rip.ax.lt> (permalink)
Date	Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:17:23 +0200 (CEST)
Mail-To-News-Contact	abuse@dizum.com
Organization	mail2news@dizum.com
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.sys.intel:52

Show key headers only | View raw

I have seen many peoples castigating the Prescott compared to
the Northwood P4. We had a stretch of rainy days, so I tested
some old PCs - I had a draw full of Pentium IVs to swap in them.
One benchmark for L1 latency came out thus:
Northwood 2 cycles
Prescott 5 cycles
Cedar Mill 4 cycles
How did Intel bugger up the L1 cache?

Back to comp.sys.intel | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

how can a newer processor have worse L1 cache? Anne Onime <anonymous@rip.ax.lt> - 2011-04-06 15:17 +0200
  Re: how can a newer processor have worse L1 cache? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2011-04-07 00:38 -0400
  Re: how can a newer processor have worse L1 cache? "Jim" <jim@wtf.invalid> - 2011-04-07 05:48 -0400
  Re: how can a newer processor have worse L1 cache? Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 15:19 -0400

csiph-web