It's a few years since I was down in these weeds, but I remember someone saying these days, data access time is more important than CPU speed.
I remember working on a product that many TCBs could access concurrently. We had a Compare and Swap on the "next trace entry" field. This was a killer, because the data was sometimes in the same CPU (so within millimeters), and sometimes it was in a different book - so 1 meter away ( speed of light 3 nano seconds for this time) We replaced the common trace buffer with a trace table buffer per TCB, and got a big boost in performance. The trace buffer was nearly always in the CPU cache so fast access time. Colin On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 15:51, Mike Schwab < [email protected]> wrote: > 5.5GHz is a 2 inch 5 cm signal. 10 GHz would require a signal length of 1 > inch 2.5 cm. > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 8:31 AM Steve Beaver < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > We all know the z17 has been announced. > > > > > > > > What I am disappointed in is the CP's have not gone faster than 5.5 Ghz. > > > > I know the z17 is an evolution, but why have they not gotten faster? > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > -- > Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA > Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
