why 512KB cache sucks

3rd November 2005, 13:47

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/...painkiller.htm

jmke · 3rd November 2005, 13:50

10 fps drop out of ~140 ain't too bad for a cheaper CPU.

3rd November 2005, 13:57

minimum FPS, the alpha and the omega when it comes to gaming performance

huge hit there

jmke · 3rd November 2005, 14:03

at what resolution is that test? I don't see it

3rd November 2005, 14:03

640x480, the only way to get games CPU dependant

jmke · 3rd November 2005, 14:24

ah; good to know that when playing at normal resolutions the difference will not be noticable at all then

3rd November 2005, 15:15

it's a matter of time when it becomes noticable, once games have catched up with CPU power consumption, the 1MB cache CPUs will have the much longer breath

jmke · 3rd November 2005, 15:17

by that time, that 1Mb CPU can be had for $10

3rd November 2005, 16:27

just not for the socket your motherboard has =P

3rd November 2005, 18:21

hey look sempron going for socket 939...

3rd November 2005, 13:47	#1
Rutar Posts: n/a	why 512KB cache sucks http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/...painkiller.htm

3rd November 2005, 13:50	#2
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	10 fps drop out of ~140 ain't too bad for a cheaper CPU. __________________

3rd November 2005, 14:03	#4
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	at what resolution is that test? I don't see it __________________

3rd November 2005, 14:24	#6
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	ah; good to know that when playing at normal resolutions the difference will not be noticable at all then __________________

3rd November 2005, 15:17	#8
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	by that time, that 1Mb CPU can be had for $10 __________________

3rd November 2005, 13:57	#3
Rutar Posts: n/a	minimum FPS, the alpha and the omega when it comes to gaming performance huge hit there

3rd November 2005, 15:15	#7
Rutar Posts: n/a	it's a matter of time when it becomes noticable, once games have catched up with CPU power consumption, the 1MB cache CPUs will have the much longer breath

3rd November 2005, 16:27	#9
Rutar Posts: n/a	just not for the socket your motherboard has =P

3rd November 2005, 18:21	#10
FreeStyler Posts: n/a	hey look sempron going for socket 939...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intel Planning E3200 Pentium CPU? 45nm, 2.6Ghz, 1Mb L2 Cache	jmke	WebNews	0	9th March 2009 22:59
First Intel Nehalem has 8MB cache	jmke	WebNews	3	27th May 2008 00:53
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6950 coming Q4, 3.33GHz, 12MB L2 cache	jmke	WebNews	0	27th July 2007 15:46
Intel Server QuadCore CPU "Harpertown" has 12 MB cache, FSB 1333	jmke	WebNews	0	18th June 2007 09:51
Most efficient L2 cache usage: Intel shared or AMD dedicated?	jmke	WebNews	0	23rd October 2006 13:04
How Much Cash for that Cache? AMD do not want you to have 1Mb cache	jmke	WebNews	12	17th June 2006 16:05
Samsung's HDDs with Flash Cache to Emerge Along with Windows Vista	jmke	WebNews	0	18th May 2006 16:05
Intel forecasts Celerons with 512K L2 cache	Sidney	WebNews	0	13th July 2005 15:23
Intel Preps 3.50GHz Server Chips with 8MB Cache	jmke	WebNews	0	14th January 2005 09:58
Intel Itanium 2 to Get Additional Clock-Speed, Cache	jmke	WebNews	0	25th May 2004 15:21