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

[lablkilz699]

its not exactly expensive ram....im looking at some PC3700 Kingmax stuff. Its been given good reviews by people who i have asked. And i doubt the 3.0Ghz P4 will fry if the right precautions are taken and its done right.

[lablkilz699]

P.S. this Kingmax PC3700 stuff is like $128.00 for (2x512) on new egg.

[rabidaardvark]

Don't really have numbers for Intels chips but all the benchmarks on AMD's chips show a 1 or 2 % difference with cpu's at the same clock and one with a 128 k L2 and the other at a 1 meg L2 so who knows. Also unless things have changed lower cache has always made for better overclocking.

[mike_sanfil]

I didn't say it woudl fry, but you are still taking a chance, and it's still a $50 difference even if you pick apart my theory.

[mike_sanfil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabidaardvark

Don't really have numbers for Intels chips but all the benchmarks on AMD's chips show a 1 or 2 % difference with cpu's at the same clock and one with a 128 k L2 and the other at a 1 meg L2 so who knows. Also unless things have changed lower cache has always made for better overclocking.

Well bigger caches tend to have higher latency's, so if they arn't fully utilizing the extra space it's just a waste.

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_sanfil

Well bigger caches tend to have higher latency's, so if they arn't fully utilizing the extra space it's just a waste.

thats why i was looking to sell my 2.8E and buy a 2.8C with the money, (heat and performance are better on the C for gaming., besides i want to oc the baby)

[samwichse]

Whoops, brain fart.

[RamAirTA98]

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

The reason northwoods run cooler isn't because of the cache, it's because it is processed on a 130nm wafer. The Prescott is on a 90nm wafer, giving it less space to dissipate heat.