Question about 4mb cache

[Gepidae]

Sorry for a noob question but Im still trying to learn =\. Is there a significant difference between 4mb cache (E6600) vs 2mb cache (E6300) in terms of gaming? If someone could explain to me the difference in simple terms it would be helpful in determining my next cpu =)

Thanks

 

[stevty2889]

There won't be much differance in gaming since gaming is mainly dependant on the video card. Some applications will likely benifit from the added cache, but until they are actualy out it's kinda hard to test that.

 

[AristoV300]

The cache is just onboard memory for the CPU. The more cache the better performance because the cache has the lowest latency starting from L1 to L3. With the larger cache the CPU can handle more processes onboard rather than sending it off to the memory attached to the board. So for gaming it is recommended to get the larger cache.

 

[aka1nas]

It depends on the architecture and other factors whether the performance difference will be significant. Looking at past CPUs, I doubt the extra cache will give you more than a few % more performance in games.

 

[Spoelie]

Games are actually the applications where you'll see the most speedup from extra cache. The 4mb versions should be quite a bit faster (5% or more on the same clock speed) in non-gpu limited scenarios. However, in about every other application there won't be any tangible performance difference.

Check http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2762&p=6 to see this effect on the AMD processor. Conroe has higher IPC so it needs more cache, but has more cache to begin with.

 

[Gepidae]

Originally posted by: Spoelie
Games are actually the applications where you'll see the most speedup from extra cache. The 4mb versions should be quite a bit faster (5% or more on the same clock speed) in non-gpu limited scenarios. However, in about every other application there won't be any tangible performance difference.

Check http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2762&p=6 to see this effect on the AMD processor. Conroe has higher IPC so it needs more cache, but has more cache to begin with.

I looked at the link and in the gaming area it did seem like the larger cache size of the x2 4800 was better. Can I generalize this statement or are there other factors to consider as well assuming similar clock speeds?

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: Spoelie
Games are actually the applications where you'll see the most speedup from extra cache. The 4mb versions should be quite a bit faster (5% or more on the same clock speed) in non-gpu limited scenarios. However, in about every other application there won't be any tangible performance difference.

Check http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2762&p=6 to see this effect on the AMD processor. Conroe has higher IPC so it needs more cache, but has more cache to begin with.

Office productivity apps generally benefit the most from big l2 caches.

 

[FelixDeCat]

More impact over time.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Spoelie
Games are actually the applications where you'll see the most speedup from extra cache. The 4mb versions should be quite a bit faster (5% or more on the same clock speed) in non-gpu limited scenarios. However, in about every other application there won't be any tangible performance difference.

Check http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2762&p=6 to see this effect on the AMD processor. Conroe has higher IPC so it needs more cache, but has more cache to begin with.

I agree. reviews in the past shows 1mb cache was better then the 512kb of cache in games...

 

[coldpower27]

It also depends on how dependent the architecture in on cache.

A Banias to Dothan with double the cache and equivalent models wasn't that dramatic a performance increase.

The thing with the E6300 vs the E6600, your only factoring the less cache but less clockspeed as well, the clockspeed will have the majority of impact if past data is to be used as a baseline.

 

[Gepidae]

Although its both lower in cache and a tad lower in clockspeed (Comparing E6400 2.13GHz now), the price difference is too much to pass up. I mean even if the E6600 is better how well does it translate to real world performance? maybe like ~5%? Just my thoughts when going into buying a new chip