Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] Processors & Platforms > Mainboard & CPU
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 29-04-06, 10:36 PM
Raven Raven is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,207
cpu cache

hi.

does anyone have any info on the how much difference it is with different ondie cache sizes ?

Regards

Raven

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29-04-06, 10:49 PM
FarFarAway FarFarAway is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 0
I think the figure of 5% was mentioned somewhere but can't remember where.

I found that the bigger cache made windows a bit smoother and big programs were more responsive. I don't think I can quantify it, its more of a "feeling"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29-04-06, 11:06 PM
NickS NickS is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,430
I think that a Venice at 2.6 is equal to a San Diego at 2.4, iirc. I remember reading that somewhere. (Making up for the difference of Cache sizes, that is.)

Nick
__________________
Laptop

Sony VAIO CS110E 14.1" :: Core 2 Duo T5800

3GB DDR2-800 :: 250GB HDD :: Intel Media Accelerator

HTPC

Gateway GT4024 :: Intel Pentium D 805 :: 1GB DDR2-667

700GB of Storage :: ATi Xpess200 :: Sharp AQUOS 32" 720p





Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 30-04-06, 01:02 AM
Raven Raven is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,207
so noone has made any benchmarking to get hard numbers ?

remember i read along time ago atleast 2 years ago on tomshardware and they had compared 256kb and 512kb cache and found very little difference between them in speed.

but that was another time when programs and games was much smaller than today.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30-04-06, 07:23 PM
llwyd llwyd is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,726
larger amounts of cache seem to just go hand in hand with higher performance CPU's, eg, nobody has made a 3.6GHz cpu with 128kb L2 cache, nor have they made a 1.6GHz cpu with 2MB L2 cache. I think what im getting at is that there is no clear trend / difference with cache size vs performance and is to be considered as a part of the whole chip rather than a stand-alone memory module
__________________
Just ate 5 Cadbury's Double Deckers in 30 minutes

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30-04-06, 09:06 PM
NickS NickS is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,430
Larger L2 = faster spi times too

Nick
__________________
Laptop

Sony VAIO CS110E 14.1" :: Core 2 Duo T5800

3GB DDR2-800 :: 250GB HDD :: Intel Media Accelerator

HTPC

Gateway GT4024 :: Intel Pentium D 805 :: 1GB DDR2-667

700GB of Storage :: ATi Xpess200 :: Sharp AQUOS 32" 720p





Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 30-04-06, 10:00 PM
Phnom_Penh Phnom_Penh is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,235
The cache does make a good bit of difference, otherwise it would make budget cpus with less cache pointless.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 30-04-06, 10:44 PM
Raven Raven is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,207
finally found some hard numbers and not opinions on the matter.

venice 512kb cache ran superpi 32m 34seconds FASTER than a sandiego with 1mb cache.

everything was the same with both cpu's.

graphics memory timings fsb multiplier everything.

that means 1mb cache either slow things down or the san diego chip tested is faulty but still it ran all benchmarks without problem.

pcmark04 differed less than 15 points between the cpu's

venice beat the SD with 500points in 3dmark01

memory bandwidth, cpu arithmetic and cpu multimedia benchmark scored basicly the same on both cpu's.

program used was sandra.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.