Ready, steady… save!
You don’t need a chart to join in. Here are 2 ways to record your savings:
1. Cross it off
Pop a chart into your first post. Saved an amount? Cross it out! Read more »
£0.01 £0.02 £0.03
2. Write it down
Skip the chart and add updates to your first post. Read more »
“Another +£3 saved today. Go me!”
Use +£ before each new saving so it counts towards your total.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
quck laptop l2 cache question
jonnyb
Posts: 601
Forumite
in Techie Stuff
what's better - small l2 cache (512) and big fsb 3200mhz
or big cache (1mb) and small fsb 800mhz ?
thanks in advance
or big cache (1mb) and small fsb 800mhz ?
thanks in advance
Karma is a wonderful thing. 
0
Comments
-
I think the FSB (front side bus) connects the CPU to the northbridge (memory controller), while the L2 cache is used by the CPU to buffer memory contents. So with a 512kB L2 cache + 3.2GHz FSB, half the number of data can be cached, but the cache can be replenished four times (3200/800) times as quickly.
So I'd guess that a program that uses the CPU continuously (maybe something like video encoding, image processing, mathematical computation, etc.) would run faster with a 3.2GHz FSB, since the L2 cache would soon be emptied and the FSB would be the limiting factor in transferring data to the CPU; but a program that intermittently used CPU cycles might perform better with the 1MB L2 cache.0 -
You won't have 3200fsb for a while.
You are getting confused - why don't you approach this in a simpler way and simply look up the 2 cpu in a benchmark list ?
Eg http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php - there are others .
Then you have another question - does l2 matter much/how important is l2 cache ? The answer depends on what the cpu is doing.0 -
All other things being relatively equal, BIG CACHE. Biggest cache you can find. L2 cache has a large effect on performance.
No such thing as a 3.2GHz FSB.0 -
No such thing as a 3.2GHz FSB.
I thought that sounded a bit odd!
Several years ago, I remember opting for an AMD64 CPU because of the way that that these chips had a memory controller built in, so they could reference RAM directly without being limited by the speed of the FSB (if I remember rightly). I think Intel might have integrated memory controllers on the chip since around the time that the Core 2 Duo chips came out...0 -
http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=57115&category_id=1050&manufacturer_id=0&tid=lx.ptq02.028
I understand what you all say about the fsb, and 3200mhz being unattainable, but the link above mentions a bus speed of that figure.
Am I misunderstanding it ?
Thanks for the link to cpu benchmark ddoris.Karma is a wonderful thing.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 255K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.2K Spending & Discounts
- 248.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards