cpu cache

Raven

New member
hi.

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

Regards

Raven
 
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"
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top