Is 4mb of cache noticably better than 2mb?

[regnez]

I am building a new system (C2D of course), but I don't know whether to go with the E6300 for the price and the lower cache, or go with the E6600 for the extra cache.

Would I regret going with the lower priced C2D and missing out on the cache, or is it even that significant?

For reference, I am going to use this computer for typical computer stuff (web browsing, word processing, etc.), gaming, and video encoding. I also plan on upgrading to Vista in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

 

[shabby]

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

 

[regnez]

Well that article certainly clears things up nicely. Thanks for the link. 🙂

 

[Blain]

For those considering AMD processors...
Those linked benchmarks are based on Intel C2D CPU's, not 512MB vs 1MB L2 cached dual core AMD chips.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: regnez
Well that article certainly clears things up nicely.

Yup, average 3.5% faster for 40% more cost. To get the best of both worlds, the E6320 has been announced for Q3 2007, basically the E6300 speed but with 4MB cache.

 

[shabby]

Originally posted by: Blain
For those considering AMD processors...

Pfft... now who would wanna do that? 🙂

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Blain
For those considering AMD processors...
Those linked benchmarks are based on Intel C2D CPU's, not 512MB vs 1MB L2 cached dual core AMD chips.

when did they put out 512MB cache x2s?

j/k i couldn't reist...😱

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: regnez
I am building a new system (C2D of course), but I don't know whether to go with the E6300 for the price and the lower cache, or go with the E6600 for the extra cache.

Would I regret going with the lower priced C2D and missing out on the cache, or is it even that significant?

For reference, I am going to use this computer for typical computer stuff (web browsing, word processing, etc.), gaming, and video encoding. I also plan on upgrading to Vista in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

just think, you can o/c and make up for the ~3.5% difference very easily and will have saved some $$$$ 🙂

 

[regnez]

Originally posted by: bob4432

just think, you can o/c and make up for the ~3.5% difference very easily and will have saved some $$$$ 🙂

Yup, that is exactly what I am going to go ahead and do.

 

[StopSign]

The difference is greatest for multimedia applications and non-existent for most games games. Overall, 3.5% is still fairly negligible.

 

[Conky]

I read somewhere that a good rule of thumb is that the extra 2mb is roughly equal to 200Mhz speed difference. So, under this theory, a 2mb Conroe running at 2.6Ghz is the approximate equivalent of a 4mb Conroe running at 2.4Ghz.

 

[StopSign]

Then the X6800 at stock should be *somewhat* close to my overclocked E6300 in performance, but in benchmarks my E6300 blows it away.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: StopSign
Then the X6800 at stock should be *somewhat* close to my overclocked E6300 in performance, but in benchmarks my E6300 blows it away.

Well, the assumption is that all things are the same. Your extreme RAM speeds make quite a difference too. 😉

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Blain
For those considering AMD processors...
Those linked benchmarks are based on Intel C2D CPU's, not 512MB vs 1MB L2 cached dual core AMD chips.

when did they put out 512MB cache x2s?

j/k i couldn't reist...😱

Oh, I must have been thinking of AMD's next gen CPU's 😛

 

[MTDEW]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: StopSign
Then the X6800 at stock should be *somewhat* close to my overclocked E6300 in performance, but in benchmarks my E6300 blows it away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the assumption is that all things are the same. Your extreme RAM speeds make quite a difference too.

In my opinion These two statements say it all.

I sold my e6600 and kept my e6300 for these very reasons. 😉

 

[Roguestar]

An E6300 at X6800 speeds will have a much higher FSB and therefore higher memory bandwidth.

 

[ColKurtz]

For most purposes you won't notice, but encoding is one area that will definitely take advantage of the extra cache. The extra 2MB will give you roughly a 10% performance boost. Whether that's worth it to you is another story.