The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Quick CPU (cache) and HD (RPM) question...

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by CGHitman14, Nov 26, 2007.

  1. CGHitman14

    CGHitman14 Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    1
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    How big is the difference between 2MB and 4MB cache in the processor? For example, how much better is the 4MB in this example than the 2MB:

    Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5250 (1.5GHz/667Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
    vs.
    Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7500 (2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB/4MB cache)

    And then again, what would make the computer run the smoothest with these two:

    320GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
    vs
    160GB SATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
     
    CGHitman14, Nov 26, 2007
    #1
  2. K-TRON

    K-TRON Hi, I'm Jimmy Diesel ^_^

    Reputations:
    4,412
    Messages:
    8,077
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    205
    The T7500 will run much faster than the T5250, not because of the cache size, but because of the sheer advantage in clock speed and FSB.

    Am not sure on what would be a better harddrive. The 320Gb definitely has the density, which would make it run like a 7200rpm drive, but the 7200rpm drive is kindof limited in capacity.

    The 7200rpm drive will make things snappier, but if youre considering a 7200rpm drive, get the Hitachi 7K200, its one hell of a fast harddrive. If you need more capacity, the 200Gb version will be fast and large capacity.

    K-TRON
     
    K-TRON, Nov 26, 2007
    #2
  3. CGHitman14

    CGHitman14 Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    1
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Maybe this example will lead to the answer Im' looking for then:

    Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7250 (2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
    v.
    Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7500 (2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB/4MB cache)

    Does the extra 2MB cache mean much here?
     
    CGHitman14, Nov 26, 2007
    #3
  4. K-TRON

    K-TRON Hi, I'm Jimmy Diesel ^_^

    Reputations:
    4,412
    Messages:
    8,077
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    205
    For Intel processors the more cache the more instruction sets the processor can handle. The 2mb of more cache will mean more performance, but the performance gain will be far from 2x the performance. you may notice a 2-5% increase in speed with the cache increase.

    With AMD cache sizes do not matter, as their architecture can utilize both large and small cache sizes and use them the same way.
    So size really doesnt matter.

    Hope this helps

    K-TRON
     
    K-TRON, Nov 26, 2007
    #4
  5. goofball

    goofball Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    358
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_3.html#sect0

    A comparison using C2D desktop processors and effect on performance with respect to cache.

    My experiences is that 7200rpm drives are smoother in responsiveness compared to 5400rpm drives. I am not doing a direct comparison though, as I have a 7k200 Hitachi 80GB and am comparing with 5400.3 Seagate 160GB.
     
    goofball, Nov 26, 2007
    #5
  6. nu_D

    nu_D Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    741
    Messages:
    1,577
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    I got the 7250. I had a burning hot laptop and I was tired of it. I choose -1C over -5 seconds.

    That's just me though.
     
    nu_D, Nov 26, 2007
    #6