How important is the cache on a processor?

These are my options:

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T5800 (2.0GHz, 2MB Cache, 800 MHz FSB) [Included in Price]

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T5850(2.16GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 667MHz FSB) [add $48.40]

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T8100(2.1GHz, 3MB Cache, 800 MHz FSB) [add $137.50 or $1/week-1]

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T8300(2.4GHz, 3MB Cache, 800 MHz FSB) [add $236.50 or $2/week-1]

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T9300(2.5GHz, 6MB Cache, 800 MHz FSB) [add $354.20 or $4/week-1]

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T9500(2.6GHz, 6MB Cache, 800 MHz FSB) [add $627.00 or $7/week-1][/I]

The two i'm looking at are in bold. I understand the significance of the clock speed, but not the cache. Now i'm assuming the extra .1GHz isn't worth the added $117.70 of cost, but is the extra 3mb of cache? In what situations will it help my system go faster?

(Btw; the dollars shown are Australian, so if your looking at the various prices you're probably better off looking more at the ratios. Unless you're also Australian, obviously)

Thanks

 

three percent

 

get the t8300 unless you have the money to blow.

 

The T8300 is the best deal. Even if you have the money, don't get anything else. The 3MB of cache difference really won't help. Also, the 100Mhz difference won't be much different either. The T9300 may get 10-15% more performance. It is definitely not worth it for the t9300.

 

personally i would go with the T8100

I think its the best deal and is enough to handle anything out there right now

 

Thanks for the responses.

So basically 6mb is just unnecessary overkill (marketing gimmick) and 3mb will be able to handle anything I throw at it then?

 

More cache is always better, but as you know it costs a lot. Price is the main reason why there is such a high memory hierarchy in the first place (Registers, L1 cache, L2 cache, L3 cache, RAM, Turbo memory / ready boost, Page file on HDD). Caches does the same thing RAM does but in a much smaller and faster scale.

IMO spending more than $120 on 3MB more cache is not very wise.

 

Even the cheapest processor will suit the needs of daily tasks, unless you are doing CPU intensive work. What is your budget? What are you using the computer for?

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cache-size-matter,1709-8.html

Although, I agree that it may not worth the extra $216.70 over a T8100.

 

It comes down to how much is the money worth to ya? Is it worth an increase in, say, 5%? I personally went with a bigger harddrive.