CPU 2mb cache VS 4mb

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
potato
Forum Contributor
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:30 am
Location: my lovely trailer, next to the big tree

CPU 2mb cache VS 4mb

Post by potato »

Hey,

i was wondering if its a big difference if i choose a dual core with 2MB cache instead of 4MB?
Is it really worth the extra cash?
Will i see any difference?

greets,
tom
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

There's can be a fairly significant difference in perceived speed of a machine with those cache levels.
User avatar
pickle
Briney Mod
Posts: 6445
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:11 pm
Location: 53.01N x 112.48W
Contact:

Post by pickle »

Depends how much the extra cost is ;). Obviously, you'll be doubling the amount of information that can be stored directly on the chip, which will really help for processes that access consecutively stored data, or re-use certain parts of data (which is most programs). It's probably worth the upgrade.
Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
User avatar
the_last_tamurai
Forum Commoner
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:24 am
Location: cairo
Contact:

Post by the_last_tamurai »

I've the 4MB ....

really it worths 8)
User avatar
JAB Creations
DevNet Resident
Posts: 2341
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Sarasota Florida
Contact:

Post by JAB Creations »

It depends, are you doing anything processor intensive?

My second AMD system was a single core socket 754 at 2.00 GHz with 1MB cache which chewed through a 120MB access log in under 20 seconds.

My system to follow was a single core 2.2GHz processor with 512KB that did the same task in roughly one minute. That's an extra 200 megahertz advantage in addition to dual channel memory and it took almost four times longer to complete the same process!

This task I tested this with was processing 120 megabyte access log through AWStats locally on my computer using Apache. Depending on your task it may or may not effectively change your perception between two processors with different amounts of cache for the same socket and processor speed.

So if you actively know you're locally performing processor intensive tasks I'd recommend the extra cache.
toasty2
Forum Contributor
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Arkansas, USA

Post by toasty2 »

The difference is generally insignificant. At least thats what benchmarks show... Of course, its still better to have more. I have 2MB cache on my processor. (AMD Opteron 1212, which I also have overclocked :D ).
User avatar
JAB Creations
DevNet Resident
Posts: 2341
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Sarasota Florida
Contact:

Post by JAB Creations »

I'm not following processors as closely as I did during the 939 era though there is one thing to be aware of: cache per core. Just because you have 2MB cache total does not mean it will use all 2MB. If a process is using up one of your cores might only use the cache on that core. I've read someplace that AMD/Intel may be trying to figure out how to share all the cache between all cores but it's been at least a couple months since I've read about anything in regards to cache. Still shared core cache sweetens the deal even more, again if you're actually using it.
Post Reply