  Accurate simulation techniques are indispensable to efficiently propose new
memory or architectural organizations. As implementing new hardware concepts in
real systems is often not feasible, cycle-accurate simulators employed together
with certain benchmarks are commonly used. However, detailed simulators may
take too much time to execute these programs until completion. Therefore,
several techniques aimed at reducing this time are usually employed. These
schemes select fragments of the source code considered as representative of the
entire application's behaviour -- mainly in terms of performance, but not
plenty considering the behaviour of cache memory levels -- and only these
intervals are simulated. Our hypothesis is that the different simulation
windows currently employed when evaluating microarchitectural proposals,
especially those involving the last level cache (LLC), do not reproduce the
overall cache behaviour during the entire execution, potentially leading to
wrong conclusions on the real performance of the proposals assessed. In this
work, we first demonstrate this hypothesis by evaluating different cache
replacement policies using various typical simulation approaches. Consequently,
we also propose a simulation strategy, based on the applications' LLC activity,
which mimics the overall behaviour of the cache much closer than conventional
simulation intervals. Our proposal allows a fairer comparison between
cache-related approaches as it reports, on average, a number of changes in the
relative order among the policies assessed -- with respect to the full
simulation -- more than 30\% lower than that of conventional strategies,
maintaining the simulation time largely unchanged and without losing accuracy
on performance terms, especially for memory-intensive applications.
