L2 Cache and Windows 7 performance

As almost all new notebooks are moving towards Windows 7, is there a significant difference in overall performance from 3MB to 6MB (provided that clock speeds are the same)?

This would mean a direct comparison between Intel P9600 vs P8800 with both clocking at 2667MHz. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors)

Not sure if 32 or 64-bit OS would result in a significant difference.

 

I've read somewhere that doubling L2 size increases overall performance in Windows by 10% at the same frequency. Not sure if this still holds today.

 

Depends on CPU architecture and the application you are running the processor on.

 

Just googled some info...

There is an article somewhere that doubling L2 size for a Macbook Pro increases graphics-intensive applications by 11% but overall is around 4.3%. This was using Leopard OS.

Another article, again from Anandtech, which is about 2-3 years old shows the same result for XP. Just curious to know if this is the same for Win7, especially with the Aeron features and other eye candies.

 

I've heard that there can be too much cache sometimes, because it takes a lot longer to recall instructions if there is more space to search on the die. However, look at the Pentium-M design, it had a lot of cache for it's time and still 2 MB is alot for a single core, the cache is part of what enabled it to run so cool yet deliver similar performance as a much higher clocked Pentium 4. It was speedy for programs that fit entirely into the cache, because it was low latency, but had poor floating point performance therefore a Pentium 4 did win in the media creation department.

 

not worth a 100 dollars..
(im guessing at the price)

 

Comparing C2D/Q's, going from 1/2 to 3/4 MB cache might make a noticeable difference, but I don't think going to 6/8MB will make much (if any noticeable difference) since there are diminishing returns after 3/4MB. The new i7s don't rely so much on L2 but L3 cache now, so it might be different for them.

 

For certain "wavy" brands, that would mean an "up" in a series model and could easily be at least US$200 more.

 

Nope there is no such thing as too much cache as there is no such thing as too much RAM
What is important to note is increase cache doesn't correspond to uniform increase in performance.
As I have said depends on Application.
Price wise not worth the money since Intel CPUs rate of cache misses is rather low.

 

Cedarmill, aka Pentium 4 at 65nm had 2MB L2 cache. That didn't help it beat Pentium M when the clock was close enough.

 

Yeah well most Pentium 4's even in mobile flavor were higher clocked than the Pentium-M, the Pentium 4 performs worse clock for clock than the Pentium 3.

 

Thanks for your input guys. It seems that with only ~10% increase in performance is not really worth it. Although I'd be keen to know if Windows 7 could play a bigger role here. Hope there will be some detailed reviews soon.