Intel Core 2 Duo Performance - L2 cache Sizes Compared

jmke · 9th September 2007, 09:46

To elaborate further, you can remove all of the cache and make a really cheap processor. It will not only be very cheap, but also extremely slow. But how much does the second level of cache really influence and affect the performance of today's Core 2 Duo processors? We at NordicHardware have gathered three processors, with 4MB, 2MB and 1MB respectively, to investigate this more thoroughly.
http://nyhetsbrev.nordichardware.se/...rivelse--E-514

jmke · 9th September 2007, 09:49

Quote:

To believe that such small differences as a measly MB here or there makes anything but a marginal difference, in anything but synthetic tests, turns out to be completely foolish. Here we see performance differences of 15% to 22%. The 2MB model is relatively steady in between the other two, but the margin between the top and bottom model varies from game to game.

try running games not at 640x480, that will show different %

10th September 2007, 07:14

He should have done three tests instead of one.

I mean, why compare with a benchmark without forcing the most out of em?

If a 1MB cache CPU can follow suit to a 2MB or 4MB, it means one isn't loading the CPU enough.

Sigh, he should at least have tried Far Cry or Bioshock at 1280x1024 (most used res as of now iirc) full graphics on.

9th September 2007, 09:46	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	Intel Core 2 Duo Performance - L2 cache Sizes Compared To elaborate further, you can remove all of the cache and make a really cheap processor. It will not only be very cheap, but also extremely slow. But how much does the second level of cache really influence and affect the performance of today's Core 2 Duo processors? We at NordicHardware have gathered three processors, with 4MB, 2MB and 1MB respectively, to investigate this more thoroughly. http://nyhetsbrev.nordichardware.se/...rivelse--E-514 __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz 1333MHz FSB Processor Review	jmke	WebNews	0	10th May 2009 13:52
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 Processor	jmke	WebNews	0	7th June 2008 20:36
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 - Budget Penryn	jmke	WebNews	0	20th May 2008 16:28
Intel to cut Core 2 Duo mobile prices September 2nd	jmke	WebNews	0	1st August 2007 15:03
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400: Sometimes 4xxx Doesn't Mean Low Performance	jmke	WebNews	1	4th May 2007 16:23
Intel Core 2 Duo vs Core 2 Quad	jmke	WebNews	0	27th November 2006 19:05
Shuttle extends product line supporting Intel Core 2 Duo processors	jmke	WebNews	0	11th October 2006 10:29
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6700 Overclocking	jmke	WebNews	0	31st August 2006 10:48
Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo "Merom" Bench-Test and Showcase	jmke	WebNews	0	28th August 2006 21:51
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400	jmke	WebNews	0	3rd August 2006 18:23

10th September 2007, 07:14	#3
Xploited Titan Posts: n/a	He should have done three tests instead of one. I mean, why compare with a benchmark without forcing the most out of em? If a 1MB cache CPU can follow suit to a 2MB or 4MB, it means one isn't loading the CPU enough. Sigh, he should at least have tried Far Cry or Bioshock at 1280x1024 (most used res as of now iirc) full graphics on.