Difference Between 4MB and 6MB L2 Cache?

I was wondering if anyone could explain to me what the significant difference between these are?

 

will let you know in a few years when they get here..

 

You know the OP meant L3 cache.

And more L3 helps with multi-threaded apps or heavy multitasking. It's able to store more info on-die for faster access and it shares data across all cores. In most situations a user wouldn't see any considerable increase between 4MB and 6MB L3 cache unless they do a lot of heavy multitasking.

edit: Here's some good user explanations at the Steam forums of all places: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1522446

 

actually with C2D as in his present hardware it is L2 cache. assuming the bios is optimized it will help with the desktop smoothness amonst other multithread operations.

When you have two cores fighting for main memory access storing alot of data within the L2 cache reduces latencies CPU feels in general. for single thread applications it usually does not mean all that much. This is not always the case though.

As an example with the P7805 going from 9c.12.00 bios to 9c.17.00 and above there was a significant difference in the snappiness of the desktop with a 6MB L2 CPU. It just turned buttery smooth.

Now on the opposite end I took the U81a and went from 2MB L2 to 3 and could feel the difference but going from 3MB to 6MB I could see none. So from system to system YMMV...............

 

No I meant L2 Cache, I was just decided between what processor I should get, I am considering the X7800/X7900 or the T9300, as my luck was I ordered the T9500 and it came DOA AGAIN! So I just simply asked for a refund and now I'm not sure, but to make an informed decision, I would like to know the differences between the L2 Caches.

Thank you for the quick responses.

 

I stand corrected. Didn't realize you were looking to update to your existing machine nor looking at the extreme CPU's.

 

if your a gamer difference is negligible, get wateva is cheapest and the best performer.

 

One has 4MB on chip memory, the other has 6MB.

 

I have two lots of 6MB of L2 cache

 

Go with the T9300. An array of tests for the Gateway FX series showed comparable performance between the T9300 and X7800/7900 without the heat.

Price should be similar as well.

 

Both the t9300 and T9500 draw alot more power than the original CPU. Even though the TDP's may not be all that different, the extra speed and cache just need more power.

The other thing is if the bios will alow the CPU so long as it does then that is not an issue. The Geforce 8400m GS will be the limiting factor in playing games with the Dell.

Remember though, the chipset and bios are not the only limiting factors. Power requirements and then heat disipation are just as important. If the system caps will not support the power draw then the CPU will just not post at all......

 

as said
we are already there my cpu has 6mb L2 cache

 

I stand corrected!

 

For me, going from 3MB of L2 to 6MB of L2 cache accounted for a maximum of +20% performance, best shown when doing photo editing. I went from a 2.26GHz 3MB C2D to a 2.93GHz 6MB C2D. While clockspeed and nearly all benchmarks increased 29.6%, my photo-related benchmark went up 52%, which is pretty good. I suspect things like video processing will also benefit from 6MB of cache, though I don't have a benchmark for that. Pretty much anything that requires doing several operations on the same small sets of data will benefit from more cache, but you get diminishing returns past 3-4MB or so.

tl;dr: Worry about clockspeed over cache if you already have 3+MB.

 

Thanks for replying everyone!

Yeah, I was originally looking at the T7700/T7800/X7800 but because of their overheating issues, so I had to skip them all together. I have gone ahead and ordered the T9500, I believe I will be able to properly undervolt this processor and get the most performance out of it. I was originally debating between the T7/X7-series and compatible versions of T9-series.

At the moment I have 2MB cache, with a 1.5 GHz processor, I was planning on upgrading to the T7/X7-series but the processors I wanted seem to have a bit of an overheating issue (not to mention the X-series are all 44 watts) so I decided to go with the 6MB Cache and 2.6 GHz, for about $175, I don't think it's a bad price, especially from what I am upgrading from (if I'm not mistaken, it's about a 74% increase in clock-speed and exactly 200% increase in cache-size).

 

Going from 1.5 to 2.6GHz will be huge! Probably a bigger benefit than most people on this forum see. Let us know how it goes and good luck with the upgrade!