What Core 2 To Buy Now?

The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack of
L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
be better in real world day to day use?


Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?


I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
(Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.


thx

bob

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
of
| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
| be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
_____

Have you read any of the extensive posts in this newsgroup about
overclocking Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs?

A new series of 45 nm process Core 2 Duo CPUs will come out in less than a
week.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. As your question reads, the
answer is that a Core 2 Duo E4300 would perform better than a Core 2 Duo
E2160.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
of
| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
| be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
|
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
...
'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
of
| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache
would
| be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
_____

Have you read any of the extensive posts in this newsgroup about........




Yes, and they all seem to OC well.




overclocking Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs?

A new series of 45 nm process Core 2 Duo CPUs will come out in less than a
week.


And those would be....?

And what is there price/performance ratio?

I guess I should have said best bang for buck, price/performance, etc which
is what I meant.



bob





I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. As your question reads, the
answer is that a Core 2 Duo E4300 would perform better than a Core 2 Duo
E2160.


Perform better meaning it will be faster w/ stock cooling?



Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
of
| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache
would
| be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
|
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|

Phil, FYI:

The QX9650 quad extreme is scheduled for release 11/12.

The rest of the non extreme 45nm quads and duo's (wolfdales) will be
released sometime in Janurary.

Nuke
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 21:34:47 -0400, "Phil Weldon"
wrote:

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
of
| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
| be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
_____

Have you read any of the extensive posts in this newsgroup about
overclocking Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs?

A new series of 45 nm process Core 2 Duo CPUs will come out in less than a
week.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. As your question reads, the
answer is that a Core 2 Duo E4300 would perform better than a Core 2 Duo
E2160.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" wrote in message
...
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the lack
of
| L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache would
| be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio recording
| (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
|
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| And those would be....?
|
| And what is there price/performance ratio?
|
| I guess I should have said best bang for buck, price/performance, etc
which
| is what I meant.
_____

Bang for the buck? Price performance ratio? Not really meaningful questions
for a CPU in isolation from the applications, benefits of faster processing,
cost of the rest of the system (especially when you are considering only ONE
system.) These days a CPU can be the least expensive component in a new
system
You can easily spend
$150 -$200 US for a large capacity high quality power supply
$150 - $300 US for a high performance motherboard
$300 - $600 US for a high performance graphics card (or twice that for two).

All up a high performance (but not bleeding edge) system can cost $1000 US
exclusive of the CPU. At that point, doubling the cost of a CPU (say, from
a $135 E4300 to a $270 Q6600) adds only 12% to the system cost. If you
measure 'bang for the buck' against total system cost, then an overclocked
Core 2 Duo Q6600 quad wins. Or, if you wait a few months, then a Penryn 45
nm process CPU might be a better choice. Of course, the Nehalem CPUs coming
late in 2008 will require DDR3 memory and a new motherboard.

'Bang for the buck' and price/performance ratio are pretty useless measuring
sticks if the CPU isn't capable of handling the processing task in a
reasonable length of time.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Phil Weldon" wrote in message
| ...
| 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| | The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
| Are
| | all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is
it
| | luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the
lack
| of
| | L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache
| would
| | be better in real world day to day use?
| |
| |
| | Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
| |
| |
| | I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
recording
| | (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
| _____
|
| Have you read any of the extensive posts in this newsgroup about........
|
|
|
|
| Yes, and they all seem to OC well.
|
|
|
|
| overclocking Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs?
|
| A new series of 45 nm process Core 2 Duo CPUs will come out in less than
a
| week.
|
|
| And those would be....?
|
| And what is there price/performance ratio?
|
| I guess I should have said best bang for buck, price/performance, etc
which
| is what I meant.
|
|
|
| bob
|
|
|
|
|
| I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. As your question reads, the
| answer is that a Core 2 Duo E4300 would perform better than a Core 2 Duo
| E2160.
|
|
| Perform better meaning it will be faster w/ stock cooling?
|
|
|
| Phil Weldon
|
| "Bob Johnson" wrote in message
| . ..
| | The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
| Are
| | all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is
it
| | luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru says the
lack
| of
| | L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed but higher cache
| would
| | be better in real world day to day use?
| |
| |
| | Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
| |
| |
| | I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
recording
| | (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that matters.
| |
| |
| | thx
| |
| | bob
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

Thanks, Phil

I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
7900GT vid card.

I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much difference??

thx

bob



"Phil" wrote in message
...
Bob Johnson wrote:
The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews. Are
all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru
says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed
but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?


Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?


I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that
matters.

I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an 4300 on a
decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160 setup
was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3 months.

I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB walls.


--
Phil

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
| 7900GT vid card.
|
| I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much difference??
_____

The short, simple answer to your question "I still would like to know if the
L2 cache makes *that* much difference??" is that the size of the L2 cache
can make a HUGE difference. But that difference the depends on the
applications and the mix of applications. Image processing, audio
processing, and similar transforms use large chunks of repetitive code and
thus benefit greatly from a large L2 cache. Standard office applications
benefit less. The smaller the L2 cache, the greater the benefit of doubling
its size. The higher the clock speed of the CPU, the more difference the
size of the L2 cache makes (a good reason to get a larger L2 cache if you
plan to overclock.)

Sometimes the difference in processor cost is trivial (example - a Core 2
Duo E6320 1.86 GHz 4 MB L2 cache costs $5 US more than a Core 2 Duo E6300
1.86 2 MB L2 cache - $176.90 vs. $171.80 US.) I recently bought a Dell
Inspiron 1520 and spent an extra $75 US to get a Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz with a 4
MByte L2 cache rather than a Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz with a 2 MByte L2 cache.

Why have an L2 cache? Well, a CPU needs much more data (including
instructions) than the memory bus can supply. A Core 2 Duo CPU is 'super
scalar'; each core can execute more than one instruction per clock cycle.
Two cores together can execute as many as six instructions per clock cycle.
Even discounting the effect of memory latencies a 800 MHz FSB can deliver,
at most, about 3 bytes per CPU clock cycle, less than one tenth the amount a
2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo might require. Without the L1 and L2 caches a CPU would
spend most of its time waiting for data.

The on die L1 cache can supply data as fast as the CPU can use it. But the
L1 cache is very small - a larger percentage of the data the CPU needs will
not already be loaded into the L1 cache. When the data required is not in
the L2 cache, then the CPU will obtain from the L2 cache which is much
larger. The L2 cache operates at the CPU clock speed, but there is a
latency that makes it slower to supply data than the L2 cache. But this
delay is MUCH smaller than retrieving data from main memory. Caches work
because there is a larger probability that the next instruction and/or other
data needed is in a memory location near the location of the current
instructions and other data. The L2 caches store data in chunks that are
large enough to include long loops of repetitive instructions as well as
arrays of data. The larger the L2 cache, the higher the probability that
the next data needed will already be in the L2 cache. The probability
depends on the type of application and how it is programmed. You can use
the web to find the cache 'hit' probability (the probability that the data
requested is already in the cache) dependency on the cache size. This will
be different for different applications. There are standard chunks of code
that have different mixes of instructions. These standard chunks are used
to show the performance of caches. This information is available on the web
for various processors.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
| Thanks, Phil
|
| I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
| 7900GT vid card.
|
| I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much difference??
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|
|
| "Phil" wrote in message
| ...
| Bob Johnson wrote:
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru
| says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed
| but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
| recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that
| matters.
|
| I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an 4300 on
a
| decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160 setup
| was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3 months.
|
| I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB walls.
|
|
| --
| Phil
|
|
|

Thanks, Phil

I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. The 2160
should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will. From what I read, CPU
speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in most cases. Is that true?


thx

bob



"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
...
'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
| 7900GT vid card.
|
| I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
difference??
_____

The short, simple answer to your question "I still would like to know if
the
L2 cache makes *that* much difference??" is that the size of the L2 cache
can make a HUGE difference. But that difference the depends on the
applications and the mix of applications. Image processing, audio
processing, and similar transforms use large chunks of repetitive code and
thus benefit greatly from a large L2 cache. Standard office applications
benefit less. The smaller the L2 cache, the greater the benefit of
doubling
its size. The higher the clock speed of the CPU, the more difference the
size of the L2 cache makes (a good reason to get a larger L2 cache if you
plan to overclock.)

Sometimes the difference in processor cost is trivial (example - a Core 2
Duo E6320 1.86 GHz 4 MB L2 cache costs $5 US more than a Core 2 Duo E6300
1.86 2 MB L2 cache - $176.90 vs. $171.80 US.) I recently bought a Dell
Inspiron 1520 and spent an extra $75 US to get a Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz with a
4
MByte L2 cache rather than a Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz with a 2 MByte L2 cache.

Why have an L2 cache? Well, a CPU needs much more data (including
instructions) than the memory bus can supply. A Core 2 Duo CPU is 'super
scalar'; each core can execute more than one instruction per clock cycle.
Two cores together can execute as many as six instructions per clock
cycle.
Even discounting the effect of memory latencies a 800 MHz FSB can deliver,
at most, about 3 bytes per CPU clock cycle, less than one tenth the amount
a
2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo might require. Without the L1 and L2 caches a CPU
would
spend most of its time waiting for data.

The on die L1 cache can supply data as fast as the CPU can use it. But
the
L1 cache is very small - a larger percentage of the data the CPU needs
will
not already be loaded into the L1 cache. When the data required is not in
the L2 cache, then the CPU will obtain from the L2 cache which is much
larger. The L2 cache operates at the CPU clock speed, but there is a
latency that makes it slower to supply data than the L2 cache. But this
delay is MUCH smaller than retrieving data from main memory. Caches work
because there is a larger probability that the next instruction and/or
other
data needed is in a memory location near the location of the current
instructions and other data. The L2 caches store data in chunks that are
large enough to include long loops of repetitive instructions as well as
arrays of data. The larger the L2 cache, the higher the probability that
the next data needed will already be in the L2 cache. The probability
depends on the type of application and how it is programmed. You can use
the web to find the cache 'hit' probability (the probability that the data
requested is already in the cache) dependency on the cache size. This
will
be different for different applications. There are standard chunks of
code
that have different mixes of instructions. These standard chunks are used
to show the performance of caches. This information is available on the
web
for various processors.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
| Thanks, Phil
|
| I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and a
| 7900GT vid card.
|
| I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
difference??
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|
|
| "Phil" wrote in message
| ...
| Bob Johnson wrote:
| The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other reviews.
Are
| all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or is
it
| luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru
| says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower speed
| but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?
|
|
| Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
|
|
| I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
| recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if that
| matters.
|
| I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an 4300
on
a
| decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160
setup
| was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3 months.
|
| I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB
walls.
|
|
| --
| Phil
|
|
|

Bob Johnson wrote:
Thanks, Phil

I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. The
2160 should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will. From what I
read, CPU speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in most cases. Is
that true?

Bob, if you re-read Phil's excellent explanation of how L2 works, (making
allowance for his typos, he types L1 instead of L2 at times) you will
realise that it isn't true at all.

Depending on applications, in a few cases you won't notice less L2. However,
the majority of things will in fact be a lot faster with a CPU with more L2.
If you're strapped for cash maybe look at the E4xxx range of CPUs? They have
2MB L2, shared between the two cores so that they both have access to it.
--
TTFN,

Shaun.


"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
...
'Bob Johnson' wrote:
I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram
and a 7900GT vid card.

I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
difference??
_____

The short, simple answer to your question "I still would like to
know if the
L2 cache makes *that* much difference??" is that the size of the L2
cache can make a HUGE difference. But that difference the depends
on the applications and the mix of applications. Image processing,
audio processing, and similar transforms use large chunks of
repetitive code and thus benefit greatly from a large L2 cache. Standard
office applications benefit less. The smaller the L2
cache, the greater the benefit of doubling
its size. The higher the clock speed of the CPU, the more
difference the size of the L2 cache makes (a good reason to get a
larger L2 cache if you plan to overclock.)

Sometimes the difference in processor cost is trivial (example - a
Core 2 Duo E6320 1.86 GHz 4 MB L2 cache costs $5 US more than a Core
2 Duo E6300 1.86 2 MB L2 cache - $176.90 vs. $171.80 US.) I recently
bought a
Dell Inspiron 1520 and spent an extra $75 US to get a Core 2 Duo 2.2
GHz with a 4
MByte L2 cache rather than a Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz with a 2 MByte L2
cache. Why have an L2 cache? Well, a CPU needs much more data (including
instructions) than the memory bus can supply. A Core 2 Duo CPU is
'super scalar'; each core can execute more than one instruction per
clock cycle. Two cores together can execute as many as six
instructions per clock cycle.
Even discounting the effect of memory latencies a 800 MHz FSB can
deliver, at most, about 3 bytes per CPU clock cycle, less than one
tenth the amount a
2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo might require. Without the L1 and L2 caches a CPU
would
spend most of its time waiting for data.

The on die L1 cache can supply data as fast as the CPU can use it. But
the
L1 cache is very small - a larger percentage of the data the CPU
needs will
not already be loaded into the L1 cache. When the data required is
not in the L2 cache, then the CPU will obtain from the L2 cache
which is much larger. The L2 cache operates at the CPU clock speed,
but there is a latency that makes it slower to supply data than the
L2 cache. But this delay is MUCH smaller than retrieving data from
main memory. Caches work because there is a larger probability that
the next instruction and/or other
data needed is in a memory location near the location of the current
instructions and other data. The L2 caches store data in chunks
that are large enough to include long loops of repetitive
instructions as well as arrays of data. The larger the L2 cache,
the higher the probability that the next data needed will already be
in the L2 cache. The probability depends on the type of application
and how it is programmed. You can use the web to find the cache
'hit' probability (the probability that the data requested is
already in the cache) dependency on the cache size. This will
be different for different applications. There are standard chunks
of code
that have different mixes of instructions. These standard chunks
are used to show the performance of caches. This information is
available on the web
for various processors.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
Thanks, Phil

I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram
and a 7900GT vid card.

I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
difference?? thx

bob



"Phil" wrote in message
...
Bob Johnson wrote:
The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other
reviews. Are all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and
stock cooling? Or is it luck of the draw and getting a good
"stepping"? My guru says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal
and that a slower
speed but higher cache would be better in real world day to day
use? Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?


I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if
that matters.

I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an
4300
on
a
decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160
setup was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3
months. I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding
FSB
walls. --
Phil

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. The 2160
| should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will. From what I read, CPU
| speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in most cases. Is that true?
_____
No.

CPU clock speed and L2 cache are not comparable. In fact, the faster the
CPU clock speed, the more important a large L2 cache is. The more cores a
CPU has, the more important a large L2 cache is.

If you plan to overclock to ~ 3.0 GHz, then your CPU clock speed will be
higher than any Core 2 Duo stock speed. Intel spends a lot of effort to
achieve a design that balances CPU clock speed and L2 cache size.

I would certainly avoid any Core 2 Duo with a 1 MByte L2 cache.

An E6320 will certainly overclock by 50% or more, but the motherboard will
have to handle a higher FrontSide Bus speed than would be necessary if you
were instead overclocking an E4300 or E4400 to the same CPU clock speed.

It is your choice - you aren't interested in games that require a lot of
processing power. If your audio applications don't have to do processing in
real time, then you likely don't even need a Core 2 Duo; the only penalty a
smaller L2 cache will extract in an increased total time required to process
a file. If your audio applications must do processing in real time, then a
smaller L2 cache might require you choose lower quality audio. Why don't
you look up the recommended system requirements for your audio processing
programs?

Phil Weldon





"Bob Johnson" wrote in message
...
| Thanks, Phil
|
| I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. The 2160
| should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will. From what I read, CPU
| speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in most cases. Is that true?
|
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|
|
| "Phil Weldon" wrote in message
| ...
| 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| | I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and
a
| | 7900GT vid card.
| |
| | I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
| difference??
| _____
|
| The short, simple answer to your question "I still would like to know if
| the
| L2 cache makes *that* much difference??" is that the size of the L2
cache
| can make a HUGE difference. But that difference the depends on the
| applications and the mix of applications. Image processing, audio
| processing, and similar transforms use large chunks of repetitive code
and
| thus benefit greatly from a large L2 cache. Standard office
applications
| benefit less. The smaller the L2 cache, the greater the benefit of
| doubling
| its size. The higher the clock speed of the CPU, the more difference
the
| size of the L2 cache makes (a good reason to get a larger L2 cache if
you
| plan to overclock.)
|
| Sometimes the difference in processor cost is trivial (example - a Core
2
| Duo E6320 1.86 GHz 4 MB L2 cache costs $5 US more than a Core 2 Duo
E6300
| 1.86 2 MB L2 cache - $176.90 vs. $171.80 US.) I recently bought a Dell
| Inspiron 1520 and spent an extra $75 US to get a Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz with
a
| 4
| MByte L2 cache rather than a Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz with a 2 MByte L2 cache.
|
| Why have an L2 cache? Well, a CPU needs much more data (including
| instructions) than the memory bus can supply. A Core 2 Duo CPU is
'super
| scalar'; each core can execute more than one instruction per clock
cycle.
| Two cores together can execute as many as six instructions per clock
| cycle.
| Even discounting the effect of memory latencies a 800 MHz FSB can
deliver,
| at most, about 3 bytes per CPU clock cycle, less than one tenth the
amount
| a
| 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo might require. Without the L1 and L2 caches a CPU
| would
| spend most of its time waiting for data.
|
| The on die L1 cache can supply data as fast as the CPU can use it. But
| the
| L1 cache is very small - a larger percentage of the data the CPU needs
| will
| not already be loaded into the L1 cache. When the data required is not
in
| the L2 cache, then the CPU will obtain from the L2 cache which is much
| larger. The L2 cache operates at the CPU clock speed, but there is a
| latency that makes it slower to supply data than the L2 cache. But this
| delay is MUCH smaller than retrieving data from main memory. Caches
work
| because there is a larger probability that the next instruction and/or
| other
| data needed is in a memory location near the location of the current
| instructions and other data. The L2 caches store data in chunks that
are
| large enough to include long loops of repetitive instructions as well as
| arrays of data. The larger the L2 cache, the higher the probability
that
| the next data needed will already be in the L2 cache. The probability
| depends on the type of application and how it is programmed. You can
use
| the web to find the cache 'hit' probability (the probability that the
data
| requested is already in the cache) dependency on the cache size. This
| will
| be different for different applications. There are standard chunks of
| code
| that have different mixes of instructions. These standard chunks are
used
| to show the performance of caches. This information is available on the
| web
| for various processors.
|
| Phil Weldon
|
| "Bob Johnson" wrote in message
| . ..
| | Thanks, Phil
| |
| | I'll be using a Gigabyte P35 DS-3? MB, Gskill (the red stuff) ram and
a
| | 7900GT vid card.
| |
| | I still would like to know if the L2 cache makes *that* much
| difference??
| |
| | thx
| |
| | bob
| |
| |
| |
| | "Phil" wrote in message
| | ...
| | Bob Johnson wrote:
| | The C2 2160 looks like a dream according to Toms' and other
reviews.
| Are
| | all samples going to OC to 3.0 w/ a good MB and stock cooling? Or
is
| it
| | luck of the draw and getting a good "stepping"? My guru
| | says the lack of L2 cache is a real big deal and that a slower
speed
| | but higher cache would be better in real world day to day use?
| |
| |
| | Is a 4300 or similiar going to be as good for a few bucks more?
| |
| |
| | I'm not into much game playing but will be doing Digital audio
| | recording (Pro Tools, Sonar, etc) Ripping CD's, Burning DVD's if
that
| | matters.
| |
| | I've gotten 2.7G's with a 2160 on a crappy mobo and 2.9G with an
4300
| on
| a
| | decent mobo. There's no tangible difference except that the 2160
| setup
| | was about $250 less than the 4300 setup, separated by 3 months.
| |
| | I would go for the 2160, or 2180 for simplicity and avoiding FSB
| walls.
| |
| |
| | --
| | Phil
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|