2MB Cache vs. 1MB Cache...Big Difference?

[RamAirTA98]

A 630 or 640 will be better than a 530/540 cause of the cache. And the 64bit computing will come in handle in a few months... And the P4EE's have 2MB L3 cache, not L2, so it will help out more in games than a 2MB L3.

[NightRise420]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lablkilz699

its 179 for the 1MB and one 225 for the 2MB one....im not lookin for a EE edition, thats for sure. waste of money. but a 3.0 that i can OC with some PC3700 ram might be good eh? or neh? how much do you think it could be OC'ed on stock cooling?

and yes.....im sure they dig it....bigger cache, bigger man...simple logic!

Well that CPU has great potential of overclocking but as we said. Those prescott run hot as hell. And with stock cooling, i think u can only get it upto 3.2 or so. It might depend on ur case cooling and motherboard

[Friedchicken100]

Just think of it this way. L caches are like super mega ultra high speed, low latency memory.

[samwichse]

If you're looking at 1 vs. 2mb in terms of northwood vs. prescott, then I'm going to say the 1mb cache processors are actually better, as the northwood core seems to beat the prescott core (the 2mb one) in most benchmarks and runs cooler on top of that.

Sam

[HeadBand]

1mb and 2mb are both prescotts, the northwood is 512k but that dosen't really matter as its only s478

[NightRise420]

yea lol....Thats y northwood runs cool due to 512k cache. But northwood is better than prescott i think. I like my northwood =D

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightRise420

yea lol....Thats y northwood runs cool due to 512k cache. But northwood is better than prescott i think. I like my northwood =D

they both have their advantages and disadvantages

[mike_sanfil]

Well the extra cache doesn't always give more performance. When the first intel E line came out with 1mb cache they did about the same or worse than the northwood "C" line. They also help with some applications more than others. As far as overclocking, it's not worth it IMO. Why spend all that money on ram so you can risk cooking your processor when you can can just get some value ram at half the price and use the extra cash to buy a bigger processor? Processors such as the AMD 2500 mobile and others with unlocked multipliers are you the only processor that are really woth overclocking.

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_sanfil

Well the extra cache doesn't always give more performance. When the first intel E line came out with 1mb cache they did about the same or worse than the northwood "C" line. They also help with some applications more than others. As far as overclocking, it's not worth it IMO. Why spend all that money on ram so you can risk cooking your processor when you can can just get some value ram at half the price and use the extra cash to buy a bigger processor? Processors such as the AMD 2500 mobile and others with unlocked multipliers are you the only processor that are really woth overclocking.

you wont risk roasting it if you take precautions.....
cant just turn everything up and expect it to do great

[mike_sanfil]

That still doesn't justify overclocking. You would make out if you had get some cheap ram (2x512 pc3200 = $90) and got luckey. The OCZ value is pretty good. Toms hardware says it will do 480mhz at 2-2-2, and it only costs about $145 for a gig. Most high quality ram costs twice as much though. You would have to estimate about how far you "think" you could overclock it and then compare it to much faster your processor would be after some value ram and an extra $150.