this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
439 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

IIRC, the slot CPU thing was because they wanted to get the cache closer to the processor, but hadn't integrated it on-die yet. AMD did the same thing with the original Athlon.

On a related note, Intel's anticompetitive and anti- consumer tactics are why I've been buying AMD since the K6-2.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They had integrated the L2 on-die before that already with the Pentium Pro on Socket 8. IIRC the problem was the yields were exceptionally low on those Pentium Pros and it was specifically the cache failing. So every chip that had bad cache they had to discard or bin it as a lower spec part. The slot and SECC form factor allowed them to use separate silicon on a larger node by having the cache still be on-package (the SECC board) instead of on-die.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

AMD followed suit for the memory bandwidth part from the K62 architecture. Intel had no reason to do so.