EggXpert.com

The platform that enables you to build rich, interactive communities
Welcome to eggXpert.com. Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Advanced Search

What's more important? CPU speed or L2 size?

Last post 06-29-2008, 10:55 AM by Mikheil. 6 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  06-27-2008, 7:40 AM 346739

    What's more important? CPU speed or L2 size?

    As the subject line states; What's more important [in reference to bang for the buck in CPU performance]... CPU speed or L2 cache size? Given 2 processors with say, 500 to 750mhz in speed difference, and the slower one having twice the L2... would it outperform the speedier one?

     

    Thanks

    Filed under:
  •  06-27-2008, 8:15 AM 346759 in reply to 346739

    Re: What's more important? CPU speed or L2 size?

    L2 cache is more important for me but i am not sure. clock speed does make sense that is why E8400 performs better than E8200.

    E8400: 3.0GHz  6MB L2

    E8200  2.66GHz 6MB L2  

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cache-size-matter,1709.html

     


    Only the Paranoid Survive
    T-T
    ~ ~ ~ ~
  •  06-27-2008, 5:43 PM 347142 in reply to 346759

    Re: What's more important? CPU speed or L2 size?

    Similar to my tread   :D. i have socket 754 mobo with Sempron 3400+ which has  256 KB of cach, and i am thinking of upgrading to Athlon 64 3400+ which has 512 kb and another one has 1 MB, but less speed, i cannot decide Crying

  •  06-28-2008, 3:12 AM 347352 in reply to 347142

    Re: What's more important? CPU speed or L2 size?

    LOOK at it this way cache cant be change but MHZ can be. In my opinion I would get a CPU with a larger cache and overclock it a little and you have the best of both worlds. If your not a overclocker then I would still trade cache for MHZ
  •  06-28-2008, 1:51 PM 347443 in reply to 346759

    Re: What's more important? CPU speed or L2 size?

    Er...relatively, cache size goes first. See....a faster CPU pays off for computational- intensive programs. While a larger L2 cache pays off for intensive I/O of data from ram to the CPU and back again, but one thing, have to mention, is that larger cache size mens the chip would run hotter. XD


  •  06-29-2008, 7:47 AM 347650 in reply to 347443

    Re: What's more important? CPU speed or L2 size?

    Hence why the new 45nm Quads with 12megs of cache were made 45nm right ?

    Otherwise they'd be hotter than the Q6600


  •  06-29-2008, 10:55 AM 347743 in reply to 347352

    Re: What's more important? CPU speed or L2 size?

    sambarrett:
    LOOK at it this way cache cant be change but MHZ can be. In my opinion I would get a CPU with a larger cache and overclock it a little and you have the best of both worlds. If your not a overclocker then I would still trade cache for MHZ
    Good point. But the thing is that i am one of those unfortunate ones who bought eMachines, and those prebuilt systmes, like emachines and Dell usually come with BIOS that are locked from overclocking because manufacturers know that their pre-buit systems are useing subpar components and are bad for overcloking. I tried raising FSB with nTune but it is resetting to origianl settings that manufaturer decided are optimum for the system. I tried looking into the BIOS in hopes to overclock my pc from there, but no success.  Such a shame because Sempron 3400+ is highly overclockable from 2.0 up to 2.6, i know it for sure cuz i visited many overclocking sites.

View as RSS news feed in XML

 Home   Forums   Chat   Blogs   Newsletter   About 

 FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Contact Us 

©2008 Newegg, Inc. All rights reserved.