L2 cache 1mb or 512mb

heathen

hi guys
just been looking at upgrading and some processors have 512mb and some 1mb of L2 cache.

i was wondering is it worth paying the extra for 1mb and does it make a big difference to performance as i have no idea what cache even is let alone what it does.

i dont play the latest games but tend to have a lot of applications running at the same time so would more cache help?i know memory is the main thing here so will be looking for a 2mb system if my budget will stretch.

i was thinking an amd 64 3500+ or 3700+ would be good or is it worth going for a duel core processor?

thanks ian

hobo28

If your not playing games or doing a lot of number crunching (eg. 3d modelling/CAD etc) then the size of L2 cache is unlikely to make much difference to you. If there's a big price difference, I'd go for the cheaper.

...will be looking for a 2mb system

I assume you mean 2GB, not MB). You are unlikely to use over 1GB. Any more is simply a waste. My main PC has 2GB and my laptop has 1GB. When I am working I often have around 20 apps open and rarely break 600MB of used memory. Again, I'd save the cash by spending on 1GB now and leaving room for 2GB later.

Get a dual core if your budget can stretch to it as effectively it means you are getting 2 CPU's rather than 1.

niceguyrichy

Dual core + bigger cache + lots apps running

= HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!

absolutely worth investing in dual core.

l2 cache stores 'short term' info so that the cpu doesn't have to go all the way back to the memory for it, eg; open a 4 page Word file, first scroll through it it's a bit jerky, after that it's in your cache and all runs smooth.

very simplistic view, but you get the idea

in short, get dual core, although if you don't game very much I might consider a Pentium over an AMD.

niceguyrichy

hobo28 wrote:

If your not playing games or doing a lot of number crunching (eg. 3d modelling/CAD etc) then the size of L2 cache is unlikely to make much difference to you.

heathen wrote:

but tend to have a lot of applications running at the same time

^
that's why the extra cache would make a difference to the performance, it doesn't just help with gaming you know.

Little_John

L2 Cache memory is built in to the processor, the advantage of this is like having a lazyboy with a fridge in the arm instant access rather than having to go to the kitchen do get a nice cold drink which is slower. The larger memory/fridge the more you can fit in there, when talking memory now 2mb isnt alot but the processor rarely deals with huge files and having 2mb rather than 1mb does make a huge difference you dont have to beplaying games or number crunching to notice the difference, unfortunatly very few people ever get the chance to test the diferent processors with different amounts of cache. I did a few years ago with P3's went up to 512kb and we tested them with the same speed cpu but with 256kb and there was between 70% and 40% improvement on most of the tasks. back then the 512kb cpus were very expensive but the price diference now isnt anywhere near what it was then.

Your numbers above are slightly out
L2 cache is very small as the memory is built in to the processor
128kb, 256, 512kb, 1mb, 2mb and even 4mb on dual core the more the better and it does make a huge difference. I always build pc's with 2mb cache cpu's unless the customer specifically wants to save the few £'s and get the cpu with less cache.
The amount of cache on a celeron is the reason they are so cheap 128kb or 256kb, p4's started off with 512k but they went to 1mb and now 2mb and 4mb. The AMD cpus with larger amounts of cache are quite expensive where the intel options are alot cheaper. It is fair to say an intel 3.2 with 1mb will perform worse than an intel 3.0 maybe even a 2.8 with 2mb of cache.
It makes runing programs quicker.

People going on about dual core processors? what are you on? I have built dual processor systems long before they started cramming 2 cores in to 1 CPU, back then there were very few applications that took full use of the technology, 3d studio max, autocad with some tweaking would I havnt heard of any mass development that every app is now capable of expolioting dual core/cpu. you can save a fortune and buy a single core if money is tight.

Dual core cpu's are for the Ford Capri owner look at the size of my bonnet thing, people who brag about their benchmark test results and pay £350+ every month upgrading their graphics card even buying 2 for SLi. then sit running benchmark tests for a few hours to get the best result to post on a forum again I spent £700 and my mark went up be 300. whoopee for you I spent £700 and had a great 2 week holiday and a nice suntan.

jpe20

I am personally thinking of getting a dual core am2 4000+ and overclocking it. It has 1mb cache per core. The 4200 4600 have 512kb per core so I would ignore them. The 4000 chip I would say would have alot of headroom for overclocking and the supplies heat sink and fan look like a good performer.

How overclockable a 4000 dual core am2 is I dunno???? I guess it would be from the few scant reviews I have seen. I was gonna buy a 4400 one instead but it looks like its as overclockable as the 4000 chip. Let me know if you know any more or any different.

Also worth considering a pentium setup using the pentium D805 chip (80quid) and overclocking it to around 3.6-3.8GHz depending on how happy you are watching your electricity meter whizz round!!! Certainly a cheap option. There have been reports of higher overclocks but the power consumption levels are ridiculous.

HTH

Jules

heathen

thanks for the info guys,lots of advise to be going on with:beer:

niceguyrichy

heathen wrote:

thanks for the info guys,lots of advise to be going on with:beer:

ignore the piffle above about ford capri's etc.... :rolleyes:

and consider this.

If you get a Pentium 4, dual core with hyperthreading, windows effectively see's 4 cpu's.
That's 4 cpu's for windows to assign apps to, all working at the base speed (2.8Ghz or whatever)

faster. better. no-brainer.

T4i

niceguyrichy wrote:

ignore the piffle above about ford capri's etc.... :rolleyes:

and consider this.

If you get a Pentium 4, dual core with hyperthreading, windows effectively see's 4 cpu's.
That's 4 cpu's for windows to assign apps to, all working at the base speed (2.8Ghz or whatever)

faster. better. no-brainer.

I suppose you have to work out if you need it or not, does the price justify the difference you would see. For most people I would say no, those who just want a p.c for writing CD's, browsing and using word etc the price difference isn't going to be justified.

For those hardcore benchamark geeks who like to visit every forum and post a score :rotfl: on something they havn't a clue about then yes its a must to compete with other peoples scores.

If you can afford it then why not, but for the average user you wont see where the extra money has gone.

Kilty_2

I'd say the Pentium D 805 for £80 or so is well worth the extra, 2x 2.66Ghz, each with 1MB L2.

Would fit that to any machine providing the budget wasnt amazingly tight. Make sure you get enough RAM in there too, 512mb or 1GB.

tomd84

Kilty wrote:

I'd say the Pentium D 805 for £80 or so is well worth the extra, 2x 2.66Ghz, each with 1MB L2.

Would fit that to any machine providing the budget wasnt amazingly tight. Make sure you get enough RAM in there too, 512mb or 1GB.

Where is that from?
btw so that runs as two prosessesor that are both 2.66? in total about 5ghz of prosessing power?

I need an upgrade! lol

Thanks Tom :-)