Does large L2 4mb Caches make a difference?

[platinumsteel]

Hi I am trying to make a decision on buying either the Core 2 duo 6600 which has 4mb of L2 cache and the E6400 which has only 2mb of cache.Will a 4mb cache make a difference?If so could u please tell me when the L2 caches are used and if an 4mb cache means better performance.

 

[Bobthelost]

It does make a difference but not a huge one. I think benchmarks show it to be around 5%.

Caches are used to speed up performance, information is copied from the (relatively) slow RAM into the cache where the CPU can use it. Some programs are more cache happy than others, games tend to be near the upper end.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

For Intels yes, it does make a difference. Not really for AMD. I'm not sure how big of a performance increase you'd get with 4MB cache but I'd imagine about 5% like Bob.

 

[raincityboy]

This should help

 

[Polish3d]

Anandtech's conclusion:

"The 4MB L2 cache can increase performance by as much as 10% in some situations. Such a performance improvement is definitely tangible, and as applications grow larger in their working data sets then the advantage of a larger cache will only become more visible. Unfortunately, you do pay a price premium for this added performance and future proofing as the cheapest 4MB L2 part is the E6600 priced at $316.

If you're the type to upgrade often, then the extra cache is not worth it as you're not getting enough of a present day increase in performance to justify the added cost. However, if this processor will be the basis for your system for the next several years, we'd strongly recommend picking a 4MB flavor of Core 2."

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX
For Intels yes, it does make a difference. Not really for AMD. I'm not sure how big of a performance increase you'd get with 4MB cache but I'd imagine about 5% like Bob.

Quit spreading FUD.

The difference from 2MB 4MB on Core2 based is very small. The difference from 1MB to 2MB (Smithfield to Pressler) was evensmaller. AMD X2 chips going from 512KB to 1MB enjoy as much if not moer than the Core2 difference.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX
For Intels yes, it does make a difference. Not really for AMD. I'm not sure how big of a performance increase you'd get with 4MB cache but I'd imagine about 5% like Bob.

Quit spreading FUD.

The difference from 2MB 4MB on Core2 based is very small. The difference from 1MB to 2MB (Smithfield to Pressler) was evensmaller. AMD X2 chips going from 512KB to 1MB enjoy as much if not moer than the Core2 difference.

I don't think so, the difference between a 4400X2 and a 4200X2 was no where near 10% (well, maybe in one program), however the Conroe architecture does seem to show that sort of improvement in several.

 

[imported_goku]

In most cases no.

Office applications: Yes and No, Yes it will make a bit of a difference, no because any processor over 2GHZ even P4 is simply overkill no matter how you look at it. (98% of cases anyways)
Games: No
Video: I'm not sure entirely sure but IIRC it's a No
Programs like Prime95 than can rest entirely in the Processor cache (Lots of number crunching, little bandwidth) yes they'll notice the difference, but at the moment it's still small.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX
For Intels yes, it does make a difference. Not really for AMD. I'm not sure how big of a performance increase you'd get with 4MB cache but I'd imagine about 5% like Bob.

Quit spreading FUD.

The difference from 2MB 4MB on Core2 based is very small. The difference from 1MB to 2MB (Smithfield to Pressler) was evensmaller. AMD X2 chips going from 512KB to 1MB enjoy as much if not moer than the Core2 difference.

I don't think so, the difference between a 4400X2 and a 4200X2 was no where near 10% (well, maybe in one program), however the Conroe architecture does seem to show that sort of improvement in several.

Average difference going from 2MB Core2 to 4MB Core2 is 3.5%. 10% is fringe.

 

[OatMan]

an other difference I haven't seen mentioned is with regard to overclocking.

the smaller cache chips generally OC a bit better. So if you will be OCing then this is all kind of a wash give or take < 3%

I think anand's assessment is pretty wise. If your going to hold onto the cpu for a while get the bigger cache, otherwise get the cheapest best OCing chip you can.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX
For Intels yes, it does make a difference. Not really for AMD. I'm not sure how big of a performance increase you'd get with 4MB cache but I'd imagine about 5% like Bob.

Quit spreading FUD.

The difference from 2MB 4MB on Core2 based is very small. The difference from 1MB to 2MB (Smithfield to Pressler) was evensmaller. AMD X2 chips going from 512KB to 1MB enjoy as much if not moer than the Core2 difference.

Get a clue. While the average is very small (3-5%) there are situations where it is nearly 10%. Anand's own tests confirm this. And I think I'll trust his word over yours.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX
For Intels yes, it does make a difference. Not really for AMD. I'm not sure how big of a performance increase you'd get with 4MB cache but I'd imagine about 5% like Bob.

Quit spreading FUD.

The difference from 2MB 4MB on Core2 based is very small. The difference from 1MB to 2MB (Smithfield to Pressler) was evensmaller. AMD X2 chips going from 512KB to 1MB enjoy as much if not moer than the Core2 difference.

Get a clue. While the average is very small (3-5%) there are situations where it is nearly 10%. Anand's own tests confirm this. And I think I'll trust his word over yours.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

Average diifference 3.5% (three point five, not three TO five).

3.5% difference is "very small" in my book. Yea sure there are some fringe apps that have +10% speed, but then again, there are fringe apps where a Pentium-D can perform as well as a Core2.