4MB L2 Cache vs 3MB L2 Cache

So right now I have a DV6500T with a T7700 2.4GHz 4MB L2 Cache.
I was thinking about upgrading to the P8600 2.4GHz 3MB L2 Cache.
Is this considered to be a downgrade or an upgrade?
I know the clock speed is the same... But what about the difference in the Cache?

I was wondering if anyone can let me know in what way(s) will I notice this difference in the cache levels.

 

I wouldn't even be concerned with cache. Unless you're dealing with CPU intensive programs, you won't notice the difference. Heck, even with a CPU intensive program you probably wouldn't notice.

Here's what a recent article on here said about cache:

Cache

Cache is kind of a funny thing; basically, it's memory, or RAM, that's been built into the processor. Because of its proximity to the cores and its build within the processor itself, it enjoys substantially greater bandwidth than the memory does. This cache is called "on-die cache."

It's assembled into a sort of a hierarchy: L1 (level 1) cache is the smallest and fastest, L2 cache is pretty much the standard, and the odd processor employs L3 cache. Because of L1 cache's integration into the core itself, L2 cache tends to be the one that sees the most variability. I'm sure someone in the forums is going to correct me on this, but bottom line here: L2 is the one you want to worry about.

Now I know someone is going to ask: if cache is so much faster than memory (and it is), why bother with memory at all? Why not just integrate all that memory into the processor itself? Simple: memory is physically huge. Sure, it's not that big when you look at a processor or a stick of memory, but consider this: on a typical processor, the L2 cache takes up roughly half the die. So if as little as 4MB of cache takes up that much space, try to fathom how much space 1GB would need. And that's why.

Cache size is honestly a number you shouldn't worry about too much. Sure, it'll be advertised all over the place, but it shouldn't be a consideration. On an Intel processor, as long as the L2 cache is at least 2MB on a dual core, it's plenty. On an AMD, it doesn't matter as much, at least as of the time this is written.

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4521

 

Dont forget 35w TDP against 25w which means it runs cooler.

The Pxxx processors are overall better.

 

If anything you wouldn't be downgrading. Keep in mind that the P8600 unlike the T770 has a 1066Mhz FSB. While that may not seem like a difference compared to the 800Mhz FSB, it is.

You won't notice much of a difference between the cache levels as previously mentioned, at least only a 1MB difference.

Things you will notice with the newer P8600 is increased battery performance depending on your workload. It operates at a lower voltage and has a lesser distances between the processors transistors, which is an advantage over the T7700.

Here is the Intel link about the T7700:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLA43

And the P8600:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB3S#

All in all, go for the P8600.

 

Runs cooler and more energy efficient.
If you do basic stuff and a bit of gaming don't worry about it.
If you fold, and run arithmetic with your lappy(rare) then stay where you are at.

 

This is great! Thanks guys! Now I've made a good decision. I'm glad you guys can help.

 

Are you getting the DV5?

If so, list the specs of what you plan on purchasing.