1MB vs 2MB cache

How much difference does it make with 1MB cache vs 2MB. Some of the intel chips have 1MB cache and are much cheaper without virtualization capability which is not really necessary for everyone. I know that its better to have bigger cache, is there any way to find out how much is needed for your tasks, and would 1MB be enough for browsing, word processing, and occasional gaming and computing. I don't want overall slow system even for just browsing because of smaller cache. Any suggestions?

 

More CPU intensive the task, more it'll benefit from a larger cache. Of course, every application will get a boost, but most undemanding tasks would not have any noticeable performance increase. Gaming would benefit, and so would scientific calculations, but general stuff would be the same. Although I'd recommend at least a 2MB cache, to ensure some future proofing.

 

It's a complicated question, but keep in mind that the higher end Intel processors have 4 MB cache, and some of the upcoming Quad-core processors have 12 MB cache. And Intel isn't doing that just to waste money. Having to fetch data from the memory (when it's not available in cache) wastes CPU cycles that can be better spent actually, you know, processing.

I wouldn't recommend an Intel processor that wasn't a Core 2 Duo right now, and they all have 2 MB or 4 MB cache. The lower end processors (even those based on the Core architecture) just suffer way too much from being starved for data.

Now, just browsing the internet or word processing won't necessitate a large amount of cache, but any gaming or even moderately processor-intensive task will. Assuming you'll want the system to be useful for some time to come, I would highly recommend 2 or 4 MB cache Core 2 Duo processors.

 

Thanks for your reply.
I know that it's better to have a bigger cache, but then I was wondering, it's better to have the fastest processor, but normally you don't really need that, even for scientific compuitng 1.66GHz core duo seems alright (although, I haven't tested faster ones), and also from battery run time point of view I guess 1.66 GHz would better than 2GHz. I was checking one configuration with Intel core duo 2080 with 1MB cache, 1 GB RAM, 120 GB hard drive with Vista Home Premium for $700. That looks good except for 1MB cache processor. So, if that difference is not going slow down the system too much, then I would go for it, but considering I do run some programs, I wanted to get expert opinion.

 

cache + instructions is important and sometimes far more important than speed. for example, the intel celeron vs pentium4, the celeron's small cache means that even at 4ghz such a CPU couldnt compete with a far slower P4. when it comes to CPU intensive programs like encoding/decoding, etc... then cache will make a huge difference. your experience will largely depend on what those programs you run are. web browsing, playing mp3s? that doesnt require much but when you get into photo editing, video encoding, games, etc... then thats where cache and speed counts. For $700 thats ok but adding just a few more bucks can get you a better CPU than the absolute lowest + for vista you should consider getting 2gb RAM.

 

Check this out to learn about intel cache among other things, http://www.intel.com/technology/eep/index.htm on the bottom of the page click on
Intel® Core™ microarchitecture
Watch a Flash* demo to discover some of the innovative new technology features of Intel® Core™ microarchitecture.
View the demo ›