Big improvement of 4MB cache over 2MB?

[FiveHorizons]

I was wondering what the performance difference is due to increased cache size. Would a larger cache size be a reason to spend more on a CPU?

 

[NamelessMC]

Only if you do productivity or rendering work. The Cache will probably see no real-time gaming performance differences when compared to a comparatively clocked Core2Duo.

The only real reason to go with a higher Conroe is the higher tolerance to over-clocking, but that's not always the case either. The 6400 over-clocks higher than the 6600 on average and is able to maintain those speeds reliably. If anything the 6600+'s L2 Cache is a limiting factor in their O/C potential. I would want the 6600 for the multiplier, but if I was shooting for 3.4-4.0 GHZ, I could easily hit those speeds with a 6400 and less trouble.

Check Anandtech's 4300 review, and you'll find a 4300 clocked at the same speed as an Extreme 6700 will perform just as good as, and in some cases better than the 6700. The 6700's larger L2 Cache only proved advantageous in production benchmarks, but never in gaming benchmarks.

 

[f4phantom2500]

I'd go with the 4300 for it's high multiplier and low price.

 

[Avalon]

The cache does help in gaming, but it's not huge. I'd say about 5-10% in some games.

 

[myocardia]

Supposedly, the extra 2MB of cache gives a 75-100 Mhz of speed equivalent, if both are running at the same speed. To make that a bit easier to understand, an E6600 that's running at 3.1-3.125 Ghz will be the equivalent of an E6400 that's running at 3.20 Ghz. That's assuming that everything else is identical (same RAM, at the same timings, etc).

 

[idiotekniQues]

it wont give you much of a benefit at all in probably most things you do on a daily basis. gaming benefits a tad. some games more of a tad than others.

check this in-depth comparision

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=6

 

[NoobyDoo]

This is exactly what I was wondering about in this thread .

 

[eojinlim]

The extra cache is pointless if you only plan on playing games.

 

[aka1nas]

How do you reconcile that statement to these AT benchmarks? The X6800 beats an OC'ed E4300 even with a 450Mhz clock speed handicap.

 

[swtethan]

because e4300 sux (not really) here are some benchmarks to show you what e6400 can do http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=9



extra cache doesnt affect gaming.

 

[imported_juan]

Hi, this is my first post.

I don´t realy know, but i think that the major benefit of having more cache is a faster windows experience in general, as well as faster load from recent shutdown aplications, which ones can wait longer in larger cache.

cheers.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: swtethan
because e4300 sux (not really) here are some benchmarks to show you what e6400 can do http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=9



extra cache doesnt affect gaming.

There's something odd about those two sets of benchmarks. Is there anything else besides the cache that would reduce performance on the E4300? It performs very poorly per clock in the AT review when OC'ed.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: swtethan
because e4300 sux (not really) here are some benchmarks to show you what e6400 can do http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=9



extra cache doesnt affect gaming.

There's something odd about those two sets of benchmarks. Is there anything else besides the cache that would reduce performance on the E4300? It performs very poorly per clock in the AT review when OC'ed.

My thoughts exactly, I suspect it may even be throttling at the overclocked speeds, since numerous tests have proven that FSB speed has very little impact on C2D performance.

 

[DrMrLordX]

http://www.techspot.com/review/40-core2-e4300-vs-e6300-overclocking/page3.html

3.5 ghz E4300 vs 3.5 ghz E6300 vs 2.66 ghz E6700 . . . interesting results. Check out the Super Pi times.

Seems to me that the 2 mb l2 Core 2s have scaling problems in cache/memory-intensive apps.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Supposedly, the extra 2MB of cache gives a 75-100 Mhz of speed equivalent, if both are running at the same speed. To make that a bit easier to understand, an E6600 that's running at 3.1-3.125 Ghz will be the equivalent of an E6400 that's running at 3.20 Ghz. That's assuming that everything else is identical (same RAM, at the same timings, etc).

In that case, what speed would I have to run my new E6300 at to be equal with a stock X6800??
This is the first OCing milestone i want to reach with it, then higher).

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: swtethan
because e4300 sux (not really) here are some benchmarks to show you what e6400 can do http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=9



extra cache doesnt affect gaming.

Those tests seem to be GPU limited. Anand's test of the 4300 shows what the extra cache can do:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2903

Gaming seems to be one of the areas where more cache does the most difference. The problem is that the difference will be very small at the kind of settings that most people would use when gaming. It could be of benefit when it comes to keeping a high minimum framerate, though.

 

[sbuckler]

Extra cache does effect gaming but it depends on the game - if the core of the game fits within the cache you're fine, if it doesn't then the extra cache will make a big difference. Hence the cache makes more of a difference on newer games have a larger more complex core.

 

[ineedaname]

Some games are more cpu intensive than others. Ones that are more cpu intensive can get a decent boost from the cache.
Other than that all the current processors with 4mb cache have higher multi's which help with overclocking.

For the most part u won't see much bonus to extra cache unless ur doing something like encoding.