L2 Cache vs. Clock Speed - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-14-2005, 10:51 PM   #1 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 103
Default L2 Cache vs. Clock Speed

I'm relatively new to chips and what actually drives their performance, and I've seen chips with a lower clock speed but a larger L2 cache placed at a higher price value. So which one actually determines performance? I also read somewhere that 512k of L2 can handle about 256 MB of RAM and 1 MB of L2 can handle about 512 MB of RAM. Is that true? And what if I decide to get 1 GB of RAM?

Thanks
__________________

strategist333 is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 10:58 PM   #2 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

Cache size has absolutely no relation to memory capacity.

Clock speed is more important than cache size. Frequency has a helluva lot more effect on internal bandwidth. Cache is really just small memory modules built into the die which are accessed at high speeds, you can't compensate larger memory space without the horsepower. Same deal with memory, it's pointless to have 4GB of RAM if it's operating at 1MHz.
__________________

__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 11:01 PM   #3 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 577
Send a message via ICQ to Kadahaf Send a message via AIM to Kadahaf
Default

no..it's the other way..why do you think celerons suck? they have 128kb of cache where as a p4 has 512 which is more efficient
__________________
Because people hate searching.
Best ram guide.
Different cpu types.
Good video card guide
Kadahaf is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 11:03 PM   #4 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 103
Default

Here is the two CPUs I was referring to:

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Socket 754 Clawhammer (2000 MHz, 1 MB L2 cache), which was more expensive than

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ Socket 754 Newcastle (2400 MHz, 512k L2 cache)


Is the price difference then due to the different cores? Which one is the best core?
strategist333 is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 11:29 PM   #5 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 577
Send a message via ICQ to Kadahaf Send a message via AIM to Kadahaf
Default

the 3400+ is better, because 1meg cache is unneeded for an average gamer. now..if you play HDR then you'll need it to draw more but that's for hardcore gaming
__________________
Because people hate searching.
Best ram guide.
Different cpu types.
Good video card guide
Kadahaf is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 11:41 PM   #6 (permalink)
I Rule You
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 543
Send a message via AIM to FadingTheory Send a message via Yahoo to FadingTheory
Default

The +#### refers to performance, so the +3400.

The Newcastles compensate for the loss of cacher with higher speeds, which allow them to perform more processes. The way the core designs lets it do this.

From what I hear, the newcastle was meant to reduce the price of the processor... by increasing the GHz with a better core (not much different), and then dumping the cache which would only give it marginally higher performance. Just look at the 3000+ or clawhammer and newcastle... its an equal trade of 512 L2 cache for 200 MHz of speed.

Quote:
no..it's the other way..why do you think celerons suck? they have 128kb of cache where as a p4 has 512 which is more efficient
Everything on a cleron is cut out. Its instructions are hindered, it has less cache, and it does less during the cycles it has. Youi cannot attribute poor perfomance to just the cache: the cleron looses in just about every spec.
__________________
Iraq... whee.
FadingTheory is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 11:42 PM   #7 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Chankama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,523
Default

The relevancy of cache depends a lot on the applications u are running. The less travelling to the RAM, the better it is.. If instructions/data is usually not recycled, a large cache is not very useful.

Clock speed is clock speed.. How fast can the processor go.. Both are important.. And the application will determine which is more important.. Can't say more than this - as it is not possible to say which is better without knowing the app..

And the cache size has nothing to do with the RAM size..
Chankama is offline  
Old 06-15-2005, 01:20 AM   #8 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 261
Default

Just in case you are looking to buy... I saw you mention 2 socket 754 chips... if you are going to buy I would say that socket 939 is the way to go unless you are going to stick with a build and then do a total new system in a few years.
dbernie41 is offline  
Old 06-15-2005, 03:30 PM   #9 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 103
Default

Well see, I'm choosing these chips for a laptop build, and I'm not sure Socket 939 works on laptops; do they? If they do, I'd much rather choose socket 939's.
strategist333 is offline  
Old 06-15-2005, 03:34 PM   #10 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,013
Send a message via AIM to DJ-CHRIS
Default

939 can work on laptops, just like p4's can work on laptops

However their too hot for a true laptop
__________________

DJ-CHRIS is offline  
Closed Thread

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.