L2 Cache Question

iceage · Mar 18, 2005

I have a Socket 478 3.2E w/ the 1MB L2 cache. I was curious to know what the performance difference is between the 1MB L2 cache on the 478's and the 2MB L2 cache on the Prescott 550's and 640's.

Thanks!!

Quailane · Mar 18, 2005

I think it is quite a bit because of the E E cpu. It had only 512K of l2, but 2MB of l3.

Lutzy · Mar 18, 2005

I've heard mixed things.

Some benchmarks show that there isn't a big difference between the 1mb L2 cache or the 2mb L2 cache.

Still, I like to know I've got a bit more on-die memory... It's so much faster compared to regular system memory

Rumrunner · Mar 18, 2005

Cache is very important in real world, especially if you have alot of running processes.

BigStan · Mar 18, 2005

478's and the 2MB L2 cache on the Prescott 550's and 640's.

You can't compare these three based on L2 cache alone. They are different internal architectures. Basically the 550s blow the doors off the 478s and the 6xx improve on that some more. Use the search button above. There have been several comparisons posted.

Lancelot · Mar 19, 2005

If you're Folding or running BOINC/Seti that 2MB L2 will give it a nice boost...

@md0Cer · Mar 21, 2005

Lancelot said:
If you're Folding or running BOINC/Seti that 2MB L2 will give it a nice boost...

Since the last time it was adressed, Folding does not benefit much from more memory performance or larger L2 cache. That could have changed with the introduction of different cores, but back in the day of tinker and gromac cores, more L2 did not benefit the project that much.

I do know however, that SETI does benefit.

fordf250 · Mar 21, 2005

Here

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=372907

L2 Cache Question

iceage

Member

Quailane

Member

Lutzy

Registered

Rumrunner

Member

BigStan

Member

Lancelot

Member

@md0Cer

Senior Member

fordf250

Member

Similar threads