How Much Cache?

I have an HP laptop wit a amd turion x2 tl 64 2.2ghz wit 3 gb ram and 250 gb HD... it comes with 1 mb cache (2 512kb's) and I was wondering if that is enough?

 

Enough...for what? Be a little more specific about what kind of things you use it for or are planning to use it for. Whether or not it's enough is determined by what your expectations are for it.

 

My new laptop has a 2mb cache I think maybe it has 4
don't get 1mb - especially from a turion
just scrap that and get an intel notebook
lol

 

Yea, ok...scrap an entire notebook, simply because of a processor cache. NOT.

You'll be fine. You'll see better results from 3gb of ram and your processor, than you would if you had 2gb of ram, and Travis's processor. imo

 

My uses are internet surfing, MS Office uses, downloading music and some video and maybe some dvd watching.

 

Cache is utilised differently in AMD processors than in Intel ones, so you canèt compare like that. Your processor is fine.

 

yea sorry if my processor has 4mb and his had 1mb it just sounded bad
i didnt know amd was different sorry

 

If you guys are not 90% or more sure than dont post. Misguiding information is bad.

Since you have an AMD Turion processor, you are getting a processor which utilizes cache in a different way than an Intel processor does.
Intel has been marketing off of increased cache sizes. Hence their penryn line which has 3 or 6mb of l2 instead of 2 and 4mb.
On an AMD processor, cache is not so relevant cause the cpu uses hyper transport technology and an integrated memory data bus controller. Because AMD boards do not use a memory controller outside of the processor, less cache is needed to save the files which are being written from one side of the core to the other.
An intel processor does not have an integrated memory controller, so it must have larger memory cache sizes, to save the data which must be sent from the processor, to chipset, to memory and than back again.
Since Intel processors do not have this memory controller, they use less power. This is one of the reasons why AMD processors have a higher TDP than an Intel processor does. Having an integrated controller makes that pathway shorter, so that less cache storage is needed for the data being quickly sent across the chip.
There is nothing wrong with an AMD processor with 1mb of cache.
I have an AMD Opteron 185 in my laptop, with 2Mb of L2 cache, and three 2.6Ghz hyper transport terminals, which is why my laptop has more punch than any intel laptop.
Do the math and research before posting false news.

K-TRON

 

Ouch!

To the ncomeau2010,

With those kinds of applications, your processor is very sufficient. Don't play the E-peen game because it's really just a waste of money. Only upgrade if you feel like it's slow.

 

I have a Inspiron 1501 which uses a TK-53 CPU and has 256K of cache and I have very little problem doing the basics, web surfing, emailing, watching videos even playing games.

Don't worry your CPU is fine.

 

This why people get Intel CPU than AMD. They really don't know the facts.

If you compare the Windows Experience index scores(even if it not that accurate) of "your" notebook with an AMD I am pretty sure that the RAM score will be higher.

 

RodKnee I agree with your opinion. And want to say CPU is only important in some games and a TL-64 2.2Ghz can for the most part even handle those with out issue. The GPU is what is important for games (zoogle). Rodknee your TK-53 has 256KB per core so you have 512KB total. Now unlike Intel which shares the entire L2 between all cores Turion (AMD) does not. Also the L1 in Turions is twice the Intels L1, so they are designed different there are advantages to AMD's design Intel is going to an on board memory controller which AMD has had for a longtime now. So when one talks about superior design and innovation one should be careful to get the big picture. Also because my TL-52 has Hyper transport so consider it a 1600Mhz FSB (I know simplified) my RAM PC4200 533Mhz has the same bandwidth as PC5300 667Mhz on an Intel 800Mhz FSB and more than PC5300 667Mhz on a 667Mhz FSB. Now as said above, you do the math, on an application that depends on RAM bandwidth which has the advantage. Different strategies don't take one number and pull it out as all important. A TL-64 is likely superior to 90% of the Intel's in use today, so if it "sucks" then you do the math on the Intel's? Glass houses and stones and all that, you know.

 

Thanks a lot guys