2.54 3mb cache vs 2.66 6 mb cache

I'm planning on buying a dell studio xps 16

What does "cache" mean? I wont be using it for gaming, (only 1 or 2 games) Ill be using it for multimedia editing and programming.

Should i go for the:
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor P8700 (2.53GHz/ 1066 FSB/ 3MB Cache)

or the

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T9550(2.66GH, 6MB Cache, 1066 MHz FSB)

it has a $136 difference, is it worth it?

 

passmark gives the p8600 1766 points and the t9550 1890 points only a 6% difference.

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=37006,37130,

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

 

probably not worth. caches (cpu) are temporary storage areas for fast data access in the processor. something like RAM, only far faster and smaller. i haven't seen any perceptible increase in performance due to cache sizes (imo only). since you're gonna do multimedia editing, use that 136 bucks to get an SSD drive.

 

Why don't u ppl ever get it? Passmark is inaccurate... really... a T9550 owns a P8700.. i would say a 15% performance difference... more L2 cache and higher clock speed...

 

Ok well since nobody actually addressed this, how heavy is your multimedia editing? A T9550 will show noticeable speed over a P8700, but only when you push both of them to the limit. If you're not going to need that much power, I'd save up the money.

 

Your right passmark value should be taken with a pinch of salt, but i have just searched for the wprime 32m times for the t9550 and p8700.

t9950 = 28.485s
p8700 = 30.126s

That is only a 5.45% difference , then you might say it`s only a synthetic benchmark and the larger cache of the t9550 is not being used , you most likely right.

But synthetic benchmarks and avarage scores are all we have to work with to help people decided which cpu to buy, it`s not a perfect world.

 

The fact is that Cache size beyond a certain limit doesn't really matter.
What happen is when a program branches prefetched decoded instruction that doesn't branch off correctly is sent to the L2 so when the program jumps back the decoded instruction is still available with very little latency.
So Intel Processors are already quite well optimized for cache misses hence the extra Cache is an overkill with little effect except on benchmarks that specifically test program branching like chess benchmarks.
IMO it is NOT worth the extra 136 dollars.

Don't be misled by the numbers understand how things work.

 

One aspect to consider is that the P series CPUs use less power, both when on load and idle. How much do you value less heat and fan noise and a bit more time when running on battery?

John

 

Hi there!

I have seen tons of thoughts here, so I thought I could stop by and share mine, and clarify some things.

1) 2.53 to 2.66 is NOT worth it, unless 50 bucks or so. Performance in DAILY USAGE is NEGLIGIBLE. BUT, if you are using it to crunch numbers, do renders, intensive maths calculations, handling databases, or any CPU-intensive task, ONLY IF that is the case, then the bump of .13GHz might give a different performance.

2) 3MB vs 6MB L2 Cache. True is that a larger Cache helps, no questions asked there, but for non-intensive tasks, the difference is, again, NEGLIGIBLE, the Cache will not be used that much, so the outrageously pricey upgrade is not worth it. Now, if you are stressing the CPU, and dealing with tons of info, the extra L2 Cache does help.

3) P vs T or 25W vs 35W. This is something that should be clarified. There are tons of mixed opinions and reports. I am basing mine in the conclusions that a fellow member (K-TRON), someone I would call an expert in the Hardware topic, proved. He eliminated all variables and tested both a T and a P series CPU on the same laptop, clocking the same, only difference being the allegedly wattage. Result was a very slight difference in temps when stressed, of about 3-5C, nowhere near the 40% difference Intel is claiming. Why is that? It is called chip-binning, this is, if a chip does 24.9W it is in the 25W bracket, if it does 25.1W it goes all the way up to the 35W. It is a full range of 25.1 to 35 watts, yeah, it sucks, but there is nothing we can do. Imagine the amount of types we would have if Intel ever decided to be honest on that, 24,25,26,27,28,29, all the way to 45 of the X series. So for the sake of marketing we have 25, 35 and 45. So basing on that, and that he is a person that knows, I can say that difference on P and T is very tiny, and when idling they are the same.
What does the TDP mean? The MAX the CPU will ever need to use, but not the standard, when not stressed it is using the same, or slightly more than a similarly clocked P/T. Now, if you intend to use you CPU and stress it when mobile, definitively use the P, but if not mobile, or not stress, the T is the same. Considering the P is cheaper, it is better, unless the conditions above are met.

4) There was a test on an Apple that was a 2.4 3MB vs a 2.53 6MB, difference was 7% on average.

Hope this helps! If you want to read about what I just wrote, take a look at the guide on my link, it shows in very plain english almost everything concerning about CPUs.

And post any questions you might have.

 

For the most part it isn't worth it.

I'd spend the money on more HD space. I can't ever have enough harddrive space in my laptops.

On the otherhand, upgrading a HDrive is ez. Upgrading a processor isn't.

 

That's right. If you were running a cache bound application you would see a larger difference. I think even 1MB of L2 would be enough for wprime.



--