L2 1mb cache vs L2 2mb cache

[asma123]

well, i am thinking of getting the cpu 3.2ghz from intel, but i am concerned, because i don't know wich one to get, either the one with L2 1 mb cache, or L2 2mb cache. what is the difference? because the price is not that much higher so oviously the 2mb cache is better, but why? and would it make such a big difference?

[samwichse]

Not really.

EDIT: probably ought to back that up somehow:

Quote:

If we directly compare the 500 and 600 series families, the conclusion we arrive at is very clear: the new version clearly is the better processor, even though its doubled cache size does not make that much of an impact.

Basically, the 600 series will run cooler, but not much faster than the 500 series.

Sam

[asma123]

oh so no difference? just cooler
umm then i guess its not worth it huh
i could just buy like 2 fans with the leftover money if i buy the 500 series right?

[lablkilz699]

maybe....id get the 600 series 3.0GHz and OC it. its got 64bit. and some other cool features the 500 dosent have...like that running cooler when not doing anything thing.

[RADAR1797]

It depends on what you are using the computer for. For instance, running distributed projects like SETI, cache makes a huge difference. I have a P4 1.4 GHz with 1 MB L2 cache, a P4 3 GHz with 512K cache and an Athlon running 2.1 GHz with 256 MB L2 cache. The P4 1.4 GHz completes a work unit in about 2.6 hours, the P4 3 GHz takes about 2.8 hours and the Athlon is just shy of 3 hours. That being said, for everyday use (office apps, web browsing, etc), all are about the same in look and feel.

-RADAR

[jdahl1979]

I thought that the 5XXJ models have the same features as the 6XX series without the 2MB L2 and the 30% price difference. I could be wrong.