From: already5chosen@yahoo.com   
      
   On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 09:50:32 GMT   
   anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:   
      
   >   
   > I have thought about why the idea of more smaller cores has not been   
   > more successful, at least for the kinds of loads where you have a   
   > large number of independent and individually not particularly   
   > demanding threads, as in web shops.  My explanation is that you need   
   > 1) memory bandwidth and 2) interconnection with the rest of the   
   > system.   
   >   
   > The interconnection with the rest of the system probably does   
   > not get much cheaper for the smaller cores, and probably becomes more   
   > expensive with more cores (e.g., Intel switched from a ring to a grid   
   > when they increased the cores in their server chips).   
   >   
      
   That particualr problem is addressed by grouping smaller cores into   
   clusters with shared L2 cache. It's especially effective for scaling   
   when L2 cache is true inclusive relatively to underlying L1 caches.   
   The price is limited L2 bandwidth as seen by the cores.   
      
   BTW, I didn't find any info about replacement policy of Intel's Sierra   
   Forest L2 caches.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)