Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > News > Newsgroups > alt.comp.hardware
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2007, 06:54 PM
Jethro
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cache vs FSB vs DDR memory?

I'm confused as usual.

I read of L1 and L2 caches in CPU specs,
DDRs are memory cards added to the MOBO.
I read of FSB in MOBO specs.

So if the caches are integral to the CPU, and DDr provides added
memory, where is the FSB? On the MOBO?

Thanks

Jethro

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2007, 09:02 PM
Paul
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cache vs FSB vs DDR memory?

Jethro wrote:
> I'm confused as usual.
>
> I read of L1 and L2 caches in CPU specs,
> DDRs are memory cards added to the MOBO.
> I read of FSB in MOBO specs.
>
> So if the caches are integral to the CPU, and DDr provides added
> memory, where is the FSB? On the MOBO?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jethro


It is all very confusing, and the details differ between
major families. The answer is a little different, when
comparing Athlon64 say, to a current Core2 Duo or a P4 or
even an AthlonXP. The Athlon64 uses different design principles,
that make "FSB" a more fuzzy terminology.

Loosely speaking, every storage system in your computer, can
be viewed as a level of cache. L1 and L2 currently, tend to be
full speed caches - they have multi-cycle latency (delay) to
get your data, but the clock speed of the memory can be
equivalent to the speed of the core they are connected to.
Your computer main memory is really slow by comparison, and
might be referred to as an "L3" or "Level3" cache. Your hard
drive might be considered to be the "L4" or "Level4" cache
fot the system.

On an old P4 processor, the major blocks in the system look like this.
The Front Side Bus (FSB) is physical and is right on the pins
of the processor.

--------
| Core | An old FSB800 speed Pentium4 processor
| L1 |
| L2 |
--------
|
FSB | 64 bits at 800MHz or 6.4GB/sec (800MHz is quad pumped)
| Processor clock 200MHz x 4 establishes transfer rate
PCIe |
Video <--> Northbridge <---> Memory DIMMs
x16 |
| Hub bus, perhaps 1GB/sec. Differs per chipset/generation.
|
Southbridge <---> Disk drives, USB, maybe LAN etc
|
SuperIO <---> Floppy, Serial, Parallel Port

On an Athlon64, the design looks more like this. Note that
I am not providing any details about the exact arrangement of
Core, L1, L2 (cause I'm lazy). They're just blocks for this discussion.

--------------------
| Core | Athlon64
| L1 |
| L2 |
| |
| |
| Memory_Controller |<---> Memory DIMMs
| |
--------------------
|
| Hypertransport - two sets of serial, packet oriented
| lanes, operating at 2000MHz or so.
| - (200MHz x 5) x 2 (DDR) gives data rate
| - 16 bit bus, each direction
| - 4GB/sec up, 4GB/sec down (same as PCIe x16)
PCIe |
Video <--> Northbridge
x16 |
| Hypertransport - may be narrower than the main bus
|
Southbridge <---> Disk drives, USB, maybe LAN etc
|
SuperIO <---> Floppy, Serial, Parallel Port

Now, in all the excitement, what is missing from the second diagram ?
The FSB :-) You might consider the FSB to be just before the Memory
Controller, in order to compare "Intel" to "AMD". Or instead of
working virtually, you might try to label the diagram physically -
the FSB might be viewed as the upper Hypertransport bus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon64

"...there is no FSB for the system memory to base its speed upon"

But the busses are quite dissimilar in terms of implementation.
Hypertransport is kinda like Ethernet, and uses packets. It is a
narrow bus, running at high speed. Its least efficient mode, might
be transferring small data items, due to the packet overhead (address,
CRC checks, stuff like that). When it transfers bursts of data (for
say the video card), it is much more efficient, as a longer packet
can be used.

The Intel FSB is a parallel bus, as far as I know. I don't know how
the address and data rates compare, whether they are 1:1 or some
other ratio. (On the AthlonXP for example, I think presentation
of addresses happens at a slower rate than data. AthlonXP uses
a split transaction bus, decoupling address and data. The AMD762
datasheet is as close as I can get to details about that bus.)

All good fun stuff.

Paul

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2007, 09:25 PM
Jethro
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Re: Cache vs FSB vs DDR memory?

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:02:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:

>Jethro wrote:
>> I'm confused as usual.
>>
>> I read of L1 and L2 caches in CPU specs,
>> DDRs are memory cards added to the MOBO.
>> I read of FSB in MOBO specs.
>>
>> So if the caches are integral to the CPU, and DDr provides added
>> memory, where is the FSB? On the MOBO?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jethro

>
>It is all very confusing, and the details differ between
>major families. The answer is a little different, when
>comparing Athlon64 say, to a current Core2 Duo or a P4 or
>even an AthlonXP. The Athlon64 uses different design principles,
>that make "FSB" a more fuzzy terminology.
>
>Loosely speaking, every storage system in your computer, can
>be viewed as a level of cache. L1 and L2 currently, tend to be
>full speed caches - they have multi-cycle latency (delay) to
>get your data, but the clock speed of the memory can be
>equivalent to the speed of the core they are connected to.
>Your computer main memory is really slow by comparison, and
>might be referred to as an "L3" or "Level3" cache. Your hard
>drive might be considered to be the "L4" or "Level4" cache
>fot the system.
>
>On an old P4 processor, the major blocks in the system look like this.
>The Front Side Bus (FSB) is physical and is right on the pins
>of the processor.
>
> --------
> | Core | An old FSB800 speed Pentium4 processor
> | L1 |
> | L2 |
> --------
> |
> FSB | 64 bits at 800MHz or 6.4GB/sec (800MHz is quad pumped)
> | Processor clock 200MHz x 4 establishes transfer rate
> PCIe |
>Video <--> Northbridge <---> Memory DIMMs
> x16 |
> | Hub bus, perhaps 1GB/sec. Differs per chipset/generation.
> |
> Southbridge <---> Disk drives, USB, maybe LAN etc
> |
> SuperIO <---> Floppy, Serial, Parallel Port
>
>On an Athlon64, the design looks more like this. Note that
>I am not providing any details about the exact arrangement of
>Core, L1, L2 (cause I'm lazy). They're just blocks for this discussion.
>
> --------------------
> | Core | Athlon64
> | L1 |
> | L2 |
> | |
> | |
> | Memory_Controller |<---> Memory DIMMs
> | |
> --------------------
> |
> | Hypertransport - two sets of serial, packet oriented
> | lanes, operating at 2000MHz or so.
> | - (200MHz x 5) x 2 (DDR) gives data rate
> | - 16 bit bus, each direction
> | - 4GB/sec up, 4GB/sec down (same as PCIe x16)
> PCIe |
>Video <--> Northbridge
> x16 |
> | Hypertransport - may be narrower than the main bus
> |
> Southbridge <---> Disk drives, USB, maybe LAN etc
> |
> SuperIO <---> Floppy, Serial, Parallel Port
>
>Now, in all the excitement, what is missing from the second diagram ?
>The FSB :-) You might consider the FSB to be just before the Memory
>Controller, in order to compare "Intel" to "AMD". Or instead of
>working virtually, you might try to label the diagram physically -
>the FSB might be viewed as the upper Hypertransport bus.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon64
>
> "...there is no FSB for the system memory to base its speed upon"
>
>But the busses are quite dissimilar in terms of implementation.
>Hypertransport is kinda like Ethernet, and uses packets. It is a
>narrow bus, running at high speed. Its least efficient mode, might
>be transferring small data items, due to the packet overhead (address,
>CRC checks, stuff like that). When it transfers bursts of data (for
>say the video card), it is much more efficient, as a longer packet
>can be used.
>
>The Intel FSB is a parallel bus, as far as I know. I don't know how
>the address and data rates compare, whether they are 1:1 or some
>other ratio. (On the AthlonXP for example, I think presentation
>of addresses happens at a slower rate than data. AthlonXP uses
>a split transaction bus, decoupling address and data. The AMD762
>datasheet is as close as I can get to details about that bus.)
>
>All good fun stuff.
>
> Paul

Thanks Paul.

I'm going to get a drink or two - then re-read and think on all this.

Jethro

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2007, 12:06 AM
DaveW
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cache vs FSB vs DDR memory?

The FSB is the front side bus speed that the motherboard is running at.

--

DaveW

___________
"Jethro" <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote in message
news:1iplv2lspcbklqiro4divc4gfjasb8q8or@4ax.com...
> I'm confused as usual.
>
> I read of L1 and L2 caches in CPU specs,
> DDRs are memory cards added to the MOBO.
> I read of FSB in MOBO specs.
>
> So if the caches are integral to the CPU, and DDr provides added
> memory, where is the FSB? On the MOBO?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jethro




Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

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

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need to know more about the different lines of processors Yugo alt.comp.hardware 16 08-03-2006 02:37 AM
weird memory problem T. T. alt.comp.hardware 2 07-27-2006 03:59 AM
Compatible Memory Grinder alt.comp.hardware 0 09-07-2005 08:04 PM
Memory Problems Radu alt.comp.hardware 3 08-09-2005 08:52 AM
registered vs. unbuffered compatibility (P5BWD2) David Madore alt.comp.hardware 4 08-07-2005 06:41 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45