Quad Core Cache - divided amongst cores?

boleyd

Well-known member
Does an Intel quad divide the specified cache amongst each core? As an example a quad core listed with 4gb of cache, does this equal 1gb per core?

When I use Trainz 2010 I usually am not running anything else. Therefore, just considering Trainz, is there any advantage with a quad-core versus a dual-core?
 
If the program is split into threads then these can run on a separate cores. Some Intel cups are a bit more complex and have something called hyperthreading which can be regarded as a virtual core.

So when I run TS2010 CM3 which is really multithreaded I'm seeing it use 8 cores on my four core Intel cpu.

In Driver mode TS2010 currently can only make use of two cores. However the operating system can sit on a different core.

One limiting factor on CPUs is normally heat so typically four cores are run slightly slower than two cores.

Then you have the problem of getting things into the CPU and out again, main memory is typically much slower than the speed that the CPU can handle so we buffer the CPU with cache memory. Basically you copy a block of low cost main memory onto a much more expensive high speed memory then the CPU reads the program instructions one at a time from the high speed or cache memory. This is what the L1, L2, and L3 caches are all about.

>As an example a quad core listed with 4gb of cache, does this equal 1gb per core

4 Gigs of cache memory would cost more than the rest of the computer and not offer much performance gain. 4 MBs or 1,000th of 4 gigs is much more likely. The answer is it depends on the caching algorithm and my expectation is that the cache will be shared over the cores. I seem to recall typically the L3 cache is shared but the L1 and L2 are more intimately connected to a particular CPU. On the i7 for example it has 4 x 256 KB L2 caches and a single 8MB L3 cache. Typically an 8 MB cache will not give twice the performance of a 4 MB cache. It's more can I find the memory address I need in this 4 MB copy or in this 8 MB copy of memory. Programs often run linearly so the next bit of memory required is often the adjacent memory location.

I run the slowest (cheapest) of the quad core Intel CPUs and I'm happy with the performance.

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclock,2772.html will give you a better idea or comparison.

Things to look for are thermal envelope you want this to be lower rather than higher. Process 45 mm is good, smaller is better. You're probably going to be running the PC for a number of years by which time Trainz may well be running on more cores in Driver. However many motherboards will accept both dual and quad cpus so buy a dual today and do a mid life upgrade with quad core is a quite reasonable approach.

Cheerio John
 
One limiting factor on CPUs is normally heat so typically four cores are run slightly slower than two cores.
That would not be typically at all unless of course the CPU had inadequate cooling and or the BIOS settings along with the power settings in Windows were not set up properly for running performance applications.
 
That would not be typically at all unless of course the CPU had inadequate cooling and or the BIOS settings along with the power settings in Windows were not set up properly for running performance applications.

Actually, that's not true any more. Modern intel CPUs will dynamically adjust each core's performance to favour either higher single-core performance when possible, or slightly lower clocked multi-core performance when necessary.

Although derived from similar principles, the intention is not the same as the old performance throttling based on overheating.

kind regards,

chris
 
Actually, that's not true any more. Modern intel CPUs will dynamically adjust each core's performance to favour either higher single-core performance when possible, or slightly lower clocked multi-core performance when necessary.

Although derived from similar principles, the intention is not the same as the old performance throttling based on overheating.

kind regards,

chris

You're absolutely correct of course if the application is making use of less than four cores then the modern cpu will increase the clock speed to increase performance but remaining within the thermal envelope of the cpu. At the moment I'm know it works when running one core but a bit hazy about running more than one core but less than four.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that but I thought I'd gone into enough detail already.

Thanks John
 
Quote:
One limiting factor on CPUs is normally heat so typically four cores are run slightly slower than two cores.

That would not be typically at all unless of course the CPU had inadequate cooling and or the BIOS settings along with the power settings in Windows were not set up properly for running performance applications.

Heat has always been a limiting factor on computer performance even fifty years ago when my father-in-law was designing mainframes. I should have qualified the statement a little more to say if you chop a quad core cpu in half to produce two dual core CPUs you can run the dual core at a higher clock speed than the quad when all four CPUs in are in use because there is less heat generated on the dual than on a quad.

When people overclock to the highest performance they can ring out of a CPU then they typically use things like liquid nitrogen cooling to dissipate the heat.

In chemistry it is recognised as a rule of thumb, reaction rates for many reactions double for every 10 degrees C. increase in temperature. In computer terms think of it as your CPU or other components age twice as fast for every 10 degrees C. rise in temperature. Which is why many people use third party CPU coolers in an attempt to extend the life of the CPU.

Note that Trainz in particular TRS2004 and TRS2006 caused problems to many users through overheating, their computers typically had been designed to cool a CPU run at 20% utilisation not the 100% CPU utilisation of Trainz.

Trainz isn't a "normal" application it is very demanding and a low end computer may not be designed with sufficient cooling to run it reliably.

Cheerio John
 
Actually, that's not true any more. Modern intel CPUs will dynamically adjust each core's performance to favour either higher single-core performance when possible, or slightly lower clocked multi-core performance when necessary.

chris


Not if those options are turned off in BIOS which is why I said if the BIOS options are set up to run performance applications this is not an issue.
 
When people overclock to the highest performance they can ring out of a CPU then they typically use things like liquid nitrogen cooling to dissipate the heat.
With a good quality $70-$100 CPU cooler (no liquid nitrogen cooling here) I've gotten very healthy/stable overclocked speeds without touching the voltage on quad and hex core i7's. I've even had cores shut down in BIOS and the overclocking ceiling wasn't any higher without having all of the cores enabled.

Here's a good forum to get overclocking info, for Intel anyway -


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59




Note that Trainz in particular TRS2004 and TRS2006 caused problems to many users through overheating, their computers typically had been designed to cool a CPU run at 20% utilisation not the 100% CPU utilisation of Trainz.

Trainz isn't a "normal" application it is very demanding and a low end computer may not be designed with sufficient cooling to run it reliably.
That's nothing new for anyone who trying to run games on a system that just isn't cut out to run games and compared to other games/sims I've run Trainz isn't even that demanding.
 
Quote:
When people overclock to the highest performance they can ring out of a CPU then they typically use things like liquid nitrogen cooling to dissipate the heat.

With a good quality $70-$100 CPU cooler (no liquid nitrogen cooling here) I've gotten very healthy/stable overclocked speeds without touching the voltage on quad and hex core i7's. I've even had cores shut down in BIOS and the overclocking ceiling wasn't any higher without having all of the cores enabled.

The extreme example was being used to illustrate that heat is a limiting factor to performance and I stand by the statement that the highest overclocking speeds are obtained by things such as liquid nitrogen cooling. You can use other liquids but nitrogen is comparatively cheap and available and the sort of temperatures used aren't that difficult to handle. More exotic lower temperatures require more thought.

Cheerio John
 
The extreme example was being used to illustrate that heat is a limiting factor to performance and I stand by the statement that the highest overclocking speeds are obtained by things such as liquid nitrogen cooling.
I've never really seen liquid nitrogen cooling used for anything other than some extreme overclocking experiments to see just how high a particular CPU can go, nothing that I would use with a 24/7 setup anyway. Usually with such experiments the life expectancy of the processor isn't a concern.
 
You're absolutely correct of course if the application is making use of less than four cores then the modern cpu will increase the clock speed to increase performance but remaining within the thermal envelope of the cpu. At the moment I'm know it works when running one core but a bit hazy about running more than one core but less than four.

Current Intel parts will increase the clock speed on more than one core (http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-029908.htm)

Not if those options are turned off in BIOS which is why I said if the BIOS options are set up to run performance applications this is not an issue.

If the turbo options are disabled in BIOS, then your part will be locked at the lower quad core frequency.

If you look at Intel's current desktop products, you'll see that the fastest dual core part runs at 3.6GHz, while the fastest quad core part runs at 3.3GHz.
http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/compare-processors.htm?select=desktop

Curtis
 
If the turbo options are disabled in BIOS, then your part will be locked at the lower quad core frequency.

Curtis



I'm very well aware of the overclocking capability of the i7 quad and hex core CPU's. On the two listed machines below I've had both the quad 975X and the hex 980X running at a stable 4.4GHz on stock voltage with “C1E Support”, “Intel Virtualization Tech”, “CPU TM Function”, “Execute Disable Bit”, “Intel SpeedStep Tech”, “Intel C-State tech” and “CPU Turbo Power Limit” all DISABLED in BIOS.


ASUS Rampage III Extreme (1102 BIOS)
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition w/Corsair H70
Corsair DOMINATOR-GT 6GB DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) CMT6GX3M3A1600C7
EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SuperClocked (263.09)
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty
WD VelociRaptor 150GB – Windows 7 Ultimate 64/SP1 RC
WD VelociRaptor 300GB – Games/Programs
Corsair AX1200
Corsair 800D w/NoiseBlocker fans

ASUS Rampage II Extreme (1914 BIOS)
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition w/Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme 1366 RT
Mushkin Redline Ascent 6GB DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) (6-7-6-18-1N)
Asus/ATI 5870 (Catalyst 10.11)
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty
WD VelociRaptor 150GB Windows 7 Ultimate 64/SP1 RC
WD VelociRaptor 300GB Games/Programs
SILVERSTONE 1500Watt SST
SILVERSTONE TJ09-B
 
Sure - and if you disabled some of your cores, you'd be able to run faster.

Out of curiosity, what do the execute disable bit and the virtualization tech have to do with overclocking?

Curtis
 
Sure - and if you disabled some of your cores, you'd be able to run faster.
Nope, I experimented with that a long time ago and did'nt get any higher of an overclock with cores disabled but it was'nt an extreme “liquid nitrogen cooling” test either.


Out of curiosity, what do the execute disable bit and the virtualization tech have to do with overclocking?
Nothing that I know of, I was just listing what I had disabled in BIOS.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwhelan
You're absolutely correct of course if the application is making use of less than four cores then the modern cpu will increase the clock speed to increase performance but remaining within the thermal envelope of the cpu. At the moment I'm know it works when running one core but a bit hazy about running more than one core but less than four.

Current Intel parts will increase the clock speed on more than one core (http://www.intel.com/support/process.../CS-029908.htm)

Quote:
Originally Posted by djt
Not if those options are turned off in BIOS which is why I said if the BIOS options are set up to run performance applications this is not an issue.


Current Intel parts will increase the clock speed on more than one core (http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-029908.htm)



If the turbo options are disabled in BIOS, then your part will be locked at the lower quad core frequency.

If you look at Intel's current desktop products, you'll see that the fastest dual core part runs at 3.6GHz, while the fastest quad core part runs at 3.3GHz.
http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/compare-processors.htm?select=desktop

Curtis

Thanks for the links.

Cheerio John
 
Just butting in slightly on a very interesting thread. What temperature is average for a core duo when running trainz. Mine is stable at 61 c just wondering is this ,high,low,average.
 
What temperature is average for a core duo when running trainz. Mine is stable at 61 c just wondering is this ,high,low,average.
I'd have to fire up the the old Q9650 based machine to see what my temps are with the Core 2 but I don't remember that CPU ever getting that toasty. Even the i7's at over 4GHz don't get anywhere near that hot.
 
The CPU temperature is probably dependent on the cooling appartus - fan and heat sink. I typically see about 52c on my DualCore using Trainz. In the summer it may be 3c higher. Zalman heatsink/fan. Better than stock. Big circular copper finned assembly.

Last water cooled computer I used was an old Univac-I.
 
I see 62 degrees on my box occasionally while running Trainz, using a stock heatsink.


I don't have anything installed on this machine anymore that would really put any load on it but with the quad Core 2 Q9650 on a Asus Rampage Extreme motherboard, Thermalright True Ultra-120 eXtreme CPU cooler and Lian Li full tower case the CPU just sat idling at 26-28c for the last hour.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top