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.

    2.0 3MB L2 Cache vs 2.1 2MB L2 Cache

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by DJMonkey0, Sep 14, 2009.

  1. DJMonkey0

    DJMonkey0 Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    I am thinking about getting a laptop for gaming and want to decide on the processor:

    I want to know which one is better for gaming:

    Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T6500 (2.1GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)

    OR

    Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor P7350 (2.0GHz, 3 MB L2 Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

    Is there a noticeable difference for gaming in these two?
    The second one is $75 more and I want to know if it's worth getting the less GHz but more L2 Cache...
     
    DJMonkey0, Sep 14, 2009
    #1
  2. afhstingray

    afhstingray Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    351
    Messages:
    4,662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    105
    there wont be a big difference. maybe 1 or 2 FPS.

    the price difference is probably worth investing in a uprated graphics card

    btw, the cache wont make as much difference as the difference in the FSB speed, but again, you wont really notice much difference because the two processors are so similar

    might be worth noting that the second one is a P series, so it consumes 10 watts less than the first one. so will run cooler and give a bit more battery life
     
    afhstingray, Sep 14, 2009
    #2
  3. mattwoller

    mattwoller Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    22
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    The one thing you'll notice pretty quick is that clock speed means everything on the laptop Core2s, especially with Vista there to suck up extra resources.

    I find my 2.26 (with 3MB Cache and 1066Mhz FSB) to lag behind quite a bit in certain stuff, and 9 times out of ten I'll be CPU limited before I'm graphically limited - with that being said, I'd say get the 2.1 even if the 2.0 is the more efficient of the two.

    And honestly, depending on what laptop you're buying and your level of comfort, you can pick up a 2.26 or 2.53Ghz Core2 Penryn (3MB Cache/1066 FSB) for $250-350, anyway, and that would be a bigger upgrade. :)
     
    mattwoller, Sep 14, 2009
    #3
  4. sgogeta4

    sgogeta4 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,389
    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    456
    Definitely not worth the $75 since negligible difference in performance. In games, CPU is rarely the bottleneck (usually it will be GPU). And battery life would be almost identical since most users don't go on full load constantly when not plugged in, plus when you undervolt the difference becomes even more miniscule.
     
    sgogeta4, Sep 14, 2009
    #4
  5. mattwoller

    mattwoller Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    22
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    A fussy installation of Vista that mismanages your CPU and RAM usage can also be a cause for concern ;)
     
    mattwoller, Sep 14, 2009
    #5