PDA

View Full Version : Answer this CPU question real fast please


Yessy2952
02-21-07, 12:44 AM
L1 Cache: 32KB+32KB
L2 Cache: 4M shared
vs
L1 Cache: 32KB+32KB
L2 Cache: 2M shared

????? whats the difference?

Lazaredz
02-21-07, 12:50 AM
Would seem pretty obvious ...... 2MB of L2 cache shared between the cores.

Yessy2952
02-21-07, 12:52 AM
Would seem pretty obvious ...... 2MB of L2 cache shared between the cores.
I'm kinda new toall this can you please give more detail? As in is it faster slower better fatter skinny???

Xion X2
02-21-07, 01:06 AM
The more cache, the better. Extra cache helps a chip perform a little better at the same clock speeds.

Bman212121
02-21-07, 03:58 AM
The more cache, the better. Extra cache helps a chip perform a little better at the same clock speeds.

QFT. Good example would be to look at the s939 AMD line. They come up with the "whatever plus" numbers by using a baseline benchmark. So a 4600+ and a 4800+ both run at 2.4GHZ, but the 4800+ is faster because it has 2MB cache vs 1MB.

Absolution
02-21-07, 10:33 AM
If it was more than 20$ for the same speed, i'd get the 2mb cache; that performance is so easily retained by overclocking even the slightest

SlieTheSecond
02-21-07, 10:49 AM
Google is your friend.
Go to and it and type in "what is cpu cache"

Xion X2
02-21-07, 01:57 PM
Come on, guys. She's new and just had a question about something. All of us here were in the same boat at one point.

Lazaredz
02-21-07, 02:16 PM
Come on, guys. She's new and just had a question about something. All of us here were in the same boat at one point.

Apparently so. I didn't realize the question was really that basic and didn't mean anything by my answer other than what it directly said.

Anywho, if we are talking about the Conroe (Core2) chips, the realword differance between the two cache sizes is rather minimal if I recall. By overclocking the 2mb cache chips to 4mb cache chip speeds MOST applications come out with little differance in performance. Given the OP's initial question, I'm guessing that overclocking is out of the question right now. SO ........

It really comes down to what you are comfortable with spending. MOST of the performance differance you are going to see between the 2mb and 4mb chips is based on CPU speed not cache size.

J-Mag
02-21-07, 02:20 PM
Does cache size really make all that much difference in C2D when running games? I know it barely matters with A64 architecture.

Zelda_fan
02-21-07, 03:11 PM
L1 Cache: 32KB+32KB
L2 Cache: 4M shared
vs
L1 Cache: 32KB+32KB
L2 Cache: 2M shared

????? whats the difference?

L2 Cache is basically EXTREMELY fast memory that is located on the actual chip. It communicates directly with the processor, and operates at a very fast speed. The more, the better. So the chip with 4MB is going to be faster than the chip with 2MB.

Zelda_fan
02-21-07, 03:12 PM
If it was more than 20$ for the same speed, i'd get the 2mb cache; that performance is so easily retained by overclocking even the slightest

I disagree with that. The gap really starts to widen as you overclock the 4MB processor.

XDanger
02-21-07, 03:21 PM
make bugger all difference in games but stuff like video encoding 4 MB really helps.





Since I don't mind waiting I bought an E6400

Yessy2952
02-22-07, 12:27 AM
Ohhhhh
Thanks guys!
Well I was asking because
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115003
e6600
and the
e6300
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005

Zelda_fan
02-22-07, 01:30 AM
Ohhhhh
Thanks guys!
Well I was asking because
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115003
e6600
and the
e6300
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005

At stock speeds the E6600 is quite a bit faster.

The E6300 is a great chip if you plan to overclock and don't have a lot of money, but again, at speeds like 3.6GHZ, that extra 2MB of cache starts to make a lot of difference.

Yessy2952
02-22-07, 09:08 PM
At stock speeds the E6600 is quite a bit faster.

The E6300 is a great chip if you plan to overclock and don't have a lot of money, but again, at speeds like 3.6GHZ, that extra 2MB of cache starts to make a lot of difference.
So what do you think should I go with the e6600 or e6300?

Xion X2
02-22-07, 09:15 PM
If you can afford it, the E6600.

buffbiff21
02-22-07, 09:15 PM
So what do you think should I go with the e6600 or e6300?

If you encode movies/music to your ipod or DVD alot get an e6600.

Otherwise you will notice circa zero difference between the two.

EDIT: *given* that you OC one or the other to the same clockspeed. And you WILL be OCing with these chips.