The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    3 or 6mb L2 Cache?

    Discussion in 'Dell XPS and Studio XPS' started by aymank, May 20, 2009.

  1. aymank

    aymank Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    ok so ive decided to go for a studio 16 xps but im stuck on which processor to get, is there noticeable differnece between the 3mb and the 6mb cache , where will i notice this type of performance increase?

    which are most effiecent etc?
     
    aymank, May 20, 2009
    #1
  2. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Phil, May 20, 2009
    #2
  3. aymank

    aymank Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    thanks for that Phil

    doesnt look like much of a difference then - although the unpar and extract sees upto 11% better performance (funnily enough thats what il be mostly doing)

    even said 11% still isnt a great increase is it? i thought with the double the cache you might see better performance,

    out of curiosity does anyone with a studio xps extract large files? if so how big and how long does it usually take you, and with what processor?
     
    aymank, May 20, 2009
    #3
  4. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    11% isn't that much, and keep in mind that 4% of that was caused by the increase in frequency. They're comparing 2.4GHz 3MB and 2.5 GHz 6MB. So the cache took care of about 7%.
     
    Phil, May 20, 2009
    #4
  5. AlienContact

    AlienContact Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    6
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Well, the larger the CPU cache, the more it can hold before CPU process it, Cache is the fastest memory ever, it's so fast that even the speed of the CPU won't slow it down. An overclocked CPU or a Non-Clocked CPU isn't any match for it. It basically stores it before file! I would recommend Larger Cache that's why I choose the T9300 with 6Mb, someday My X9000 will be here! and It'll deffenitly be Overclocked 24/7 LOL!
     
    AlienContact, May 20, 2009
    #5
  6. aymank

    aymank Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    thanks for your reply, interesting as i didnt really know about it.

    im just wondering if il notice it in my day to day use , obviously i can save a few pennies if opt for a p8*** as (3mb) as opposed to the 6mb processors (t9* and p9*)
     
    aymank, May 20, 2009
    #6
  7. spradhan01

    spradhan01 Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,392
    Messages:
    3,599
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Better get 3mb cache and save some money.
     
    spradhan01, May 20, 2009
    #7
  8. ImakE

    ImakE Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    25
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Get the p, save some monies, heat, power consumption... the t line with the large cache is for mathematically intensive operations like rendering video or batch processing photos. Even for gaming, there will be no different unless youre into RTS or simulation type games, since the gpu handles all the graphics.
     
    ImakE, May 20, 2009
    #8
  9. KimoT

    KimoT Are we not men?

    Reputations:
    560
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    The article was interesting, but it did leave out the one task that most interests me. Has anyone seen a comparison of video rendering times on the two CPUs?
     
    KimoT, May 21, 2009
    #9