Any Benefits of Larger L2 Cache?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

Team42

Member
Dec 24, 2007
119
0
0
Confession first:

I know how to put components together, and I've been lucky in that I haven't had any serious problems so far. After that, computer architecture is just a load of zeros and ones to me...

Problem now:

I'm thinking (because I've got some "spare" cash coming) of upgrading my PC (see spec below in sig for my current setup).

I built my current PC for gaming, primarily Counter Strike, Far Cry and COD4. It works well, but it's not exactly top of the range by current standards and I've noticed some limitations in FarCry and COD4.

Given that the X1950Pro is now considered old hat, I'm thinking about upgrading my current GPU to a HD4850.

However, I'm wondering should I, or do I need to, upgrade my CPU at the same time. I'm thinking of an Intel E8400, which gives me easily an extra 600 MHz (my E4300 is overclocked to just over 3.0 GHz), as well as an extra 4 Mb of L2 cache. In my view (as naive as it may be) the 600 MHz seems like very little, but I'm wondering about the L2 cache. Will I see, in practical terms, any benefit from it over my current E4300 running at 3.0 GHz? Does CPU cache make a difference in gaming? Will the E4300 bottleneck the HD4850? Is there another question I should be asking?

I've tried reading some of the reviews that mention the importance of cache, but I'm not sure I fully understand the benefits. I'd be very grateful if someone could explain to me the practical benefits, if any, of having a larger CPU cache. Preferrably in English. And not using words of more than 3 syllables, or word that have just been made up by a computer company...

OH! for the love of God! Why are things so much more complicated when you're older? Lego was never like this....

Appreciating any help, :confused:

T42
 
T

toadeater

Senior member
Jul 16, 2007
488
0
0
T

Team42

Member
Dec 24, 2007
119
0
0
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
The 8400 at 3.6 will be a good upgrade.
Click to expand...

Why? It's going to cost me £109 (at current prices). The question really is, why is it going to be good? It's not that I don't believe you (I do, if I've read the reviews correctly) but the cache issue is a bit of virgin territory for me. Is it the cache? Is that important in gaming?
 
B

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
cache can offer performance improvements...your E4300 would probably have to be clocked around 3.8-4GHz to match a 3.6GHz E8400. Granted, if you're not being held back by a ~3GHz E4300, then you're not going to see any difference from upgrading to a faster CPU.

If I were in your place I'd hold out upgrading the CPU as it should last you until quadcore really starts to show some value in a wider range of games.
 
G

GundamF91

Golden Member
May 14, 2001
1,827
0
0
Team42, interesting situation you have.

6mo ago, I was at the same position. I have a E4500 oc'd at 3.2Ghz, and running x1950Pro GPU. It was okay at SupComm and Oblivion. I upgraded both CPU and GPU, so now I'm running Q9450 and HD4850. I can feel the games do run quite a bit faster. However, I'm not sure if the upgrade from E4500 really helped that much. Having cache up from 2MB to 4MB is said to add 200Mhz in speed, but beyond 4MB the return is more diminished.
 
T

Team42

Member
Dec 24, 2007
119
0
0
Originally posted by: GundamF91
Team42, interesting situation you have.

6mo ago, I was at the same position. I have a E4500 oc'd at 3.2Ghz, and running x1950Pro GPU. It was okay at SupComm and Oblivion. I upgraded both CPU and GPU, so now I'm running Q9450 and HD4850. I can feel the games do run quite a bit faster. However, I'm not sure if the upgrade from E4500 really helped that much. Having cache up from 2MB to 4MB is said to add 200Mhz in speed, but beyond 4MB the return is more diminished.
Click to expand...

GundamF91,

Thanks for your reply (and the same to everyone else).

Interesting...

Do you really think that an upgrade of CPU isn't worth it at present given my current spec and planned GPU upgrade? Both BunnyFubbles and Toadeater's replys seems to suggest that's the case.

If it's true, I'm happy. I don't want to upgrade just for the sake of it (my bank manager prevents me from being an upgrade fanatic!). Apart from anything else, it saves me £100! And I like the sound of that.

However, I want my PC to do the best for me.

Is the cache level difference between E4300 and E8400 a non-issue for me, given what I use my PC for?

Forgive the disjointed reply, if you can. It's 3:08am here and I'm shattered.

 
DSF

DSF

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2007
4,902
0
71
You'll be fine with your current chip. Don't let somebody convince you to throw away 100 pounds when Intel's new CPUs will be out in a matter of months.

An OCed 4300 is fine for running an HD4850.
 
BTRY B 529th FA BN

BTRY B 529th FA BN

Lifer
Nov 26, 2005
15,189
401
126
Originally posted by: Team42
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
The 8400 at 3.6 will be a good upgrade.
Click to expand...

Why? It's going to cost me £109 (at current prices). The question really is, why is it going to be good? It's not that I don't believe you (I do, if I've read the reviews correctly) but the cache issue is a bit of virgin territory for me. Is it the cache? Is that important in gaming?
Click to expand...

Going from 3Ghz back to 3.6Ghz when ambient temps are down, is a noticeable difference.
 
M

MyLeftNut

Senior member
Jul 22, 2007
393
0
0
The benefits of larger cache only affects lower resoutions, if you game at around 1680x1050 or more, there's hardly any difference, which in this case is all clock speed. You'll see a big difference in low resolutions like 1024x768 though. So do you game at 1024x768?
 
G

GundamF91

Golden Member
May 14, 2001
1,827
0
0
yeah, for your purpose, which seems to be gaming, the HD4850 pairing with E4300 is a good match. I think you'll be fine for this year at least. When there are more games out with quad core support, then you can pick up the Penryn quads for cheap, hopefully something along the line of Q9650 for about $200 or so after Nehalem comes out. For now, just stay put and enjoy the HD4850. I think the games are much more dependent on GPU than CPU, at least in higher resolution.

In the mean time, I think you can push your E4300 a bit to get you some of the speed. If I remember right, it has 8x multiplier. So you should be able to get it 400x8=3.2Ghz. With E4500, I can easily hit 3.2Ghz with about 1.32 vCore, I think E4300 should be similar. I was even able to get 3.6Ghz but that's with obscene 1.55 vCore. I dont' think it's a healthy thing to push that much voltage. Remember, the faster you run FSB and overclock, your L2 also runs faster by same amount. If I hadn't sold my E4500 chip for a good price, I'd probably still be using it.

Now for people who are doing 3D rendering or video editing, etc. or simply must have the latest.......then of course more L2 cache and quad core would be the way to go.
 
cubeless

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
absolutely vid card first... you'll be very pleasantly surprised at how a 4850 will improve your system ( i was)... the 4xxx will then be the bottleneck, but your performance will be quite good... get a new cpu once the shine is off the new vid card... cache isn't going to make that big a difference...

with a 4850 i get 2 frames more (36vs. 34) in crysis with a 3.4ghz 6750 than a 3.0ghx 4600 @ 1680...
 
T

Team42

Member
Dec 24, 2007
119
0
0
Originally posted by: MyLeftNut
The benefits of larger cache only affects lower resoutions, if you game at around 1680x1050 or more, there's hardly any difference, which in this case is all clock speed. You'll see a big difference in low resolutions like 1024x768 though. So do you game at 1024x768?
Click to expand...

Max resolution of my 19" widescreen monitor is 1440 x 900.


Cheers for you advice, folks. I think I'll stick with the E4300 until I'm ready to upgrade the mobo.

T42
 
dug777

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
It's not exactly pertinent to this discussion, but I recall reading a review of the 9300 comparing it to the Q6600, and in most places the faster clock speed made it quicker than the larger-cache'd Q6600, except gaming, where the Q6600 was still top dog.
 
H

harpoon84

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2006
1,084
0
0
I really think you should stick with what you have for now and see how the gaming experience 'feels'. An E4300 @ 3GHz is still quite decent for gaming purposes unless you are looking at a CF/SLI setup. CS and Far Cry are old hat and an HD4850 would handle it easily. COD4 is more GPU dependant anyway (from experience anything beyond ~2.5GHz C2D results in diminishing returns).

You should have a look at this article, it may prove useful in your decision making:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-quad-core-processors/

For reference your E4300 @ 3GHz would be roughly equal to the X6800 @ 2.93GHz, maybe ~5% slower but its close enough as a guide. You'll find that at higher resolutions CPU speed is less important as the burden shifts to the GPU.
 
T

toadeater

Senior member
Jul 16, 2007
488
0
0
Originally posted by: MyLeftNut
The benefits of larger cache only affects lower resoutions, if you game at around 1680x1050 or more, there's hardly any difference
Click to expand...

That is true with current console-bound, dumbed-down games, but you cannot assume it will always remain this way. An upcoming AI-heavy PC-only strategy game for instance, or something with a greater use of physics or other CPU-centric stuff like flight simulation will get a speed hit on slower CPUs.

Sadly we're not going to get many PC-centric games in the next two years. It looks like more of the same console ports that we had in 2007 and 2008.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom