Anthony Cozzie wrote:Seems logical. His are still 2X smaller than yours, though
anthony
Hehe.. Don't try to give me a job i don't need
The good thing is that the 330MB is without using any kind of prediction , so it is still possible to lower this using prediction or better compressor.
I think that both 157MB and 330MB will not fit in to RAM, and even if they do it is probably better to allocate it for hash table.
IMO asking for a 157MB egtb cache is as bad as asking for 330MB
You have no idea how much laziness this brough to me
regards
Daniel
