Originally posted by: MyLeftNut
But how much of a difference does the extra cache have in higher resolutions such as 1680x1050 and above where framerates are more dependant on GPU rather than CPU? I would think that at lower resolutions (1024x768) such as those used in the review outlined in the above, it would be more cpu dependant which will show the benefit of having more cache on chip.
If the OP games at around 1680x1050 or even 1280x1024, then I really don't see the point in spending that extra for more cpu cache. What is it, like 40% more expensive for the e8400, while the higher resolution you go, you'll be getting diminishing returns on it's cache advantages to paid premium (which won't be anywhere near 40% more performance).
http://techgage.com/article/in...new_budget_superstar/9
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=754&p=7