How Much Factor Does L2 Cache Play In Performance?

[monkeyboy311]

Can someone explain to me how much of a factor L2 cache is? I didnt realize the laptop I ordered only had 128k L2 cache, I thought it was 512k...

The laptop has a AMD XP-M 2800+

Its for my wife, she plans on using it for school work, email, surfing, etc.

It hasnt come in yet, so I guess I could always return it, but I did get a good deal...

 

[Insomniak]

Depends on the application, although generally added cache size will result in a noticable performance boost (5 - 15%)

 

[n0cmonkey]

You get roughly 3% more performance in word and a 4.5% increase in outlook with 512K of cache.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Its for my wife, she plans on using it for school work, email, surfing, etc

Even a 1 GHz system is fine for that so there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

System memory is much more important than cache. If the system has only 128 MB of RAM then it will be much slower than if it has 256 - 512 MB of RAM.

 

[batmanuel]

Your laptop that holds the most confusingly named processor ever. Instead being of a socket A part like all the other Mobile XPs, some of the XP-M 2800+ chips actually are a socket 754 Athlon 64 derivative, as this chart shows. It has the 64-bit capability disabled and the cache cut down to 128k. It is roughly equivalent to the Sempron 2600+ desktop chip. These chips usually wound up in Compaq laptops.

So it doesn't have the 512k cache that a Mobile Barton would have (I'm guessing that's what you thought you were getting), but it does have the same on-die memory controller that the A64s have. With the A64 memory controller, the reduced cache doesn't kill performance as badly as it would if you had a Barton-core chip in your laptop. This article should give you an idea of how much perfomance you stand to lose with 128k. It varies from app to app, but in general it isn't too horrible.

 

[monkeyboy311]

Originally posted by: batmanuel
Your laptop that holds the most confusingly named processor ever. Instead being of a socket A part like all the other Mobile XPs, some of the XP-M 2800+ chips actually are a socket 754 Athlon 64 derivative, as this chart shows. It has the 64-bit capability disabled and the cache cut down to 128k. It is roughly equivalent to the Sempron 2600+ desktop chip. These chips usually wound up in Compaq laptops.

So it doesn't have the 512k cache that a Mobile Barton would have (I'm guessing that's what you thought you were getting), but it does have the same on-die memory controller that the A64s have. With the A64 memory controller, the reduced cache doesn't kill performance as badly as it would if you had a Barton-core chip in your laptop. This article should give you an idea of how much perfomance you stand to lose with 128k. It varies from app to app, but in general it isn't too horrible.

GREAT article! i dont have anything to worry about, since that wont be a gaming laptop

I did read other places about this processor being a crippled AMD64. Any ideas if you can use it win WinXP64 or enable those features?