1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

What Core 2 To Buy Now?

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by Bob Johnson, Nov 8, 2007.

  1. Bob Johnson

    Bob Johnson Guest

    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, Nov 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob Johnson

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '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
    news:...
    | 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, Nov 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob Johnson

    Bob Johnson Guest

    "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > '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
    > news:...
    > | 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, Nov 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Bob Johnson

    Al Brumski Guest

    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
    >news:...
    >| 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
    >|
    >|
    >
    Al Brumski, Nov 9, 2007
    #4
  5. Bob Johnson

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '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
    news:...
    |
    | "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    | news:...
    | > '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
    | > news:...
    | > | 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, Nov 9, 2007
    #5
  6. Bob Johnson

    Phil Guest

    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
    Phil, Nov 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Bob Johnson

    Bob Johnson Guest

    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
    news:47345752$0$20588$...
    > 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, Nov 10, 2007
    #7
  8. Bob Johnson

    Phil Guest

    Bob Johnson wrote:
    > 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
    > news:47345752$0$20588$...
    >> 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


    It doesn't make that big of a difference for everyday usage. If you're
    gaming, maybe... I'm no expert. Anything above 1.8G seems the same speed
    to me.

    --
    Phil
    Phil, Nov 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Bob Johnson

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '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
    news:...
    | 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
    | news:47345752$0$20588$...
    | > 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
    | >
    |
    |
    Phil Weldon, Nov 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Bob Johnson

    Bob Johnson Guest

    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
    news:...
    > '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
    > news:...
    > | 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
    > | news:47345752$0$20588$...
    > | > 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, Nov 11, 2007
    #10
  11. Bob Johnson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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
    > news:...
    >> '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
    >> news:...
    >>> 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
    >>> news:47345752$0$20588$...
    >>>> 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
    ~misfit~, Nov 11, 2007
    #11
  12. Bob Johnson

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '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
    news:...
    | 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
    | news:...
    | > '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
    | > news:...
    | > | 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
    | > | news:47345752$0$20588$...
    | > | > 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
    | > | >
    | > |
    | > |
    | >
    | >
    |
    |
    Phil Weldon, Nov 12, 2007
    #12
  13. Bob Johnson

    Bob Johnson Guest

    Thanks for the good info.

    BTW, this is what prompted my post:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/page6.html


    thx

    bob




    "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
    > | I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. The 2160
    > | should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will. From what I read,
    > CPU
    > | speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in most cases. Is that true?
    > _____
    > No.
    >
    > CPU clock speed and L2 cache are not comparable. In fact, the faster the
    > CPU clock speed, the more important a large L2 cache is. The more cores a
    > CPU has, the more important a large L2 cache is.
    >
    > If you plan to overclock to ~ 3.0 GHz, then your CPU clock speed will be
    > higher than any Core 2 Duo stock speed. Intel spends a lot of effort to
    > achieve a design that balances CPU clock speed and L2 cache size.
    >
    > I would certainly avoid any Core 2 Duo with a 1 MByte L2 cache.
    >
    > An E6320 will certainly overclock by 50% or more, but the motherboard will
    > have to handle a higher FrontSide Bus speed than would be necessary if you
    > were instead overclocking an E4300 or E4400 to the same CPU clock speed.
    >
    > It is your choice - you aren't interested in games that require a lot of
    > processing power. If your audio applications don't have to do processing
    > in
    > real time, then you likely don't even need a Core 2 Duo; the only penalty
    > a
    > smaller L2 cache will extract in an increased total time required to
    > process
    > a file. If your audio applications must do processing in real time, then
    > a
    > smaller L2 cache might require you choose lower quality audio. Why don't
    > you look up the recommended system requirements for your audio processing
    > programs?
    >
    > Phil Weldon
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > | Thanks, Phil
    > |
    > | I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. 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
    > | news:...
    > | > '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
    > | > news:...
    > | > | 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
    > | > | news:47345752$0$20588$...
    > | > | > 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, Nov 12, 2007
    #13
  14. Bob Johnson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Bob Johnson wrote:
    > Thanks for the good info.
    >
    > BTW, this is what prompted my post:
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/page6.html


    That's good and all that but nowhere that I saw in that article did they
    mention the E4xxx series of CPUs. They benched against E6x50 CPUs with their
    4MB L2 and higher price but not against the E4xxx that fall in between the
    two and have 2MB L2. For instance, my E4500, on a P35 board, runs at 3.2GHz
    effortlessly at _below_ stock voltage. I wonder where *it* would cone in
    their benchmarks? It's nowhere near the price of the E6x50's. Seems strange
    that it's not included in the tests, they mention Pentium 4s and Ds, no
    "Allendales" though.

    Yeah, just double-checked, couldn't see mention of an Allendale anywhere.
    Odd.
    --
    TTFN,

    Shaun.

    > "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> '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
    >> news:...
    >>> 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
    >>> news:...
    >>>> '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
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> 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
    >>>>> news:47345752$0$20588$...
    >>>>>> 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
    ~misfit~, Nov 12, 2007
    #14
  15. Bob Johnson

    Bob Johnson Guest

    Thanks. Shaun

    What is the best 4xxx chip to get now? Price/performance/ocing?

    Is your 3.2 @ stock cooling? What board?

    thx

    bob



    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bob Johnson wrote:
    >> Thanks for the good info.
    >>
    >> BTW, this is what prompted my post:
    >>
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/page6.html

    >
    > That's good and all that but nowhere that I saw in that article did they
    > mention the E4xxx series of CPUs. They benched against E6x50 CPUs with
    > their 4MB L2 and higher price but not against the E4xxx that fall in
    > between the two and have 2MB L2. For instance, my E4500, on a P35 board,
    > runs at 3.2GHz effortlessly at _below_ stock voltage. I wonder where *it*
    > would cone in their benchmarks? It's nowhere near the price of the
    > E6x50's. Seems strange that it's not included in the tests, they mention
    > Pentium 4s and Ds, no "Allendales" though.
    >
    > Yeah, just double-checked, couldn't see mention of an Allendale anywhere.
    > Odd.
    > --
    > TTFN,
    >
    > Shaun.
    >
    >> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
    >>>> I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. The
    >>>> 2160 should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will. From what
    >>>> I read, CPU speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in most cases. Is
    >>>> that true?
    >>> _____
    >>> No.
    >>>
    >>> CPU clock speed and L2 cache are not comparable. In fact, the
    >>> faster the CPU clock speed, the more important a large L2 cache is. The
    >>> more cores a CPU has, the more important a large L2 cache is.
    >>>
    >>> If you plan to overclock to ~ 3.0 GHz, then your CPU clock speed
    >>> will be higher than any Core 2 Duo stock speed. Intel spends a lot
    >>> of effort to achieve a design that balances CPU clock speed and L2
    >>> cache size. I would certainly avoid any Core 2 Duo with a 1 MByte L2
    >>> cache.
    >>>
    >>> An E6320 will certainly overclock by 50% or more, but the
    >>> motherboard will have to handle a higher FrontSide Bus speed than
    >>> would be necessary if you were instead overclocking an E4300 or
    >>> E4400 to the same CPU clock speed. It is your choice - you aren't
    >>> interested in games that require a
    >>> lot of processing power. If your audio applications don't have to
    >>> do processing in
    >>> real time, then you likely don't even need a Core 2 Duo; the only
    >>> penalty a
    >>> smaller L2 cache will extract in an increased total time required to
    >>> process
    >>> a file. If your audio applications must do processing in real time,
    >>> then a
    >>> smaller L2 cache might require you choose lower quality audio. Why
    >>> don't you look up the recommended system requirements for your audio
    >>> processing programs?
    >>>
    >>> Phil Weldon
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Thanks, Phil
    >>>>
    >>>> I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. 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
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> '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
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> 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
    >>>>>> news:47345752$0$20588$...
    >>>>>>> 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, Nov 12, 2007
    #15
  16. Bob Johnson

    Phil Weldon Guest

    |
    | What is the best 4xxx chip to get now? Price/performance/ocing?
    |
    | Is your 3.2 @ stock cooling? What board?
    _____

    There is no ONE answer to "What is the best 4xxx chip to get now?
    Price/performance/ocing?" question.

    The overclockability varies from one CPU to another EVEN if the model number
    and stepping ARE THE SAME. Even if the each CPU is tested in the exact same
    system. There is no guarantee that a E4500 you purchase will have the same
    overclocking headroom as the E4500 ~misfit~ has.

    Ambient room temperature can make or break an overclock. If the ambient
    room temperature is 20 C, then you will very likely be able to get a
    significantly higher overclock than if the room ambient temperature is 30 C.

    I have an E4300 installed in an EVGA 680i chipset motherboard, 2 GBytes
    DDR2-1066 SLI memory, and an Antec 550 Neo modular power supply. I get an
    easy overclock to 2.7 GHz (50%) with the CPU core voltage set below
    specifications. 3.0 GHz is possible with a core voltage higher than
    specifications. I have a Thermaltake i7 air cooler (with heatpipes) and a
    room ambient temperature of 22 C. I can not overclock my E4300 any higher
    (with stable operation) on air cooling because the core temperatures reach
    above 70C running Orthos small FFTs to stress the CPU. Further voltage
    increases would be of no help because that would increase the temperature
    even more.

    Again, price/performance ratio is not much help when you are purchasing only
    one CPU, and are building a system for specific tasks.

    If you stretch out your decision making process long enough, the consider
    buying a 45 nm 'Penryn' Core 2 Duo early next year. It should run with a
    lower voltage, at a lower temperature, and the 'Penryn' CPU series will have
    a higher specified speed.

    If you wish to go ahead and build the system this month, then here is what I
    would consider:

    * You can't make a mistake choosing a CPU more powerful than you need.
    Choosing a CPU that is LESS powerful than you need IS a mistake.

    * Don't even consider a CPU with a 1 MB L2 cache.

    * Intel CPUs with a higher CPU clock multiplier are easier to overclock (it
    takes a smaller FSB speed increase to get a CPU clock speed increase.

    * Consider how long you will be using this system build; the more capable
    CPU you install, the longer the useful life of the system.

    * Consider the total cost of your new system build. An extra $40 US or
    $100 US may not seem as significant when compared against the total system
    cost rather than compared to just the CPU cost.

    I would suggest you choose among
    1. E4500 2.2 GHz 800 MHz FSB 2 MB L2 cache $132.50 US
    2. E6550 2.33 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 4 MB L2 cache $169.00 US
    3. E6320 1.86 GHz 1066 MHz FSB 4 MB L2 cache $176.90 US
    3. Q6600 2.4 GHz 1066 MHz FSB 4 MB L2 cache $275.80 US

    ** You with overclocking you should be able to get about the same top speed
    for all three of these CPUs.

    ** The E6320 will perform better because it has twice the L2 cache and
    because it will have faster transfers between memory and the CPU (faster
    FSB).

    ** The Q6600 has the same advantages at the E6320 PLUS twice as many
    processors. For some applications that means a better than a 50% processing
    performance increase.

    ** The E6550 has a stock speed higher than the E4500 or E6320 AND has a
    higher speed FSB so it starts off at stock with higher performance than the
    E4500 or E6320. On the other hand, since the FSB starts at 1333 MHz, the
    CPU clock multiplier is lower (X 7) and you will need a pretty high FSB
    speed to overclock (1830 MHz) and that will require a pretty good
    motherboard.

    Why don't you post the purchase list for your new system build for comments.
    All these components interact, and it may be that the newsgroup can suggest
    a sweet spot for your total system.

    Phil Weldon


    "Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | Thanks. Shaun
    |
    | What is the best 4xxx chip to get now? Price/performance/ocing?
    |
    | Is your 3.2 @ stock cooling? What board?
    |
    | thx
    |
    | bob
    |
    |
    |
    | "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    | news:...
    | > Bob Johnson wrote:
    | >> Thanks for the good info.
    | >>
    | >> BTW, this is what prompted my post:
    | >>
    | >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/page6.html
    | >
    | > That's good and all that but nowhere that I saw in that article did they
    | > mention the E4xxx series of CPUs. They benched against E6x50 CPUs with
    | > their 4MB L2 and higher price but not against the E4xxx that fall in
    | > between the two and have 2MB L2. For instance, my E4500, on a P35 board,
    | > runs at 3.2GHz effortlessly at _below_ stock voltage. I wonder where
    *it*
    | > would cone in their benchmarks? It's nowhere near the price of the
    | > E6x50's. Seems strange that it's not included in the tests, they mention
    | > Pentium 4s and Ds, no "Allendales" though.
    | >
    | > Yeah, just double-checked, couldn't see mention of an Allendale
    anywhere.
    | > Odd.
    | > --
    | > TTFN,
    | >
    | > Shaun.
    | >
    | >> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    | >> news:...
    | >>> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
    | >>>> I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. The
    | >>>> 2160 should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will. From what
    | >>>> I read, CPU speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in most cases. Is
    | >>>> that true?
    | >>> _____
    | >>> No.
    | >>>
    | >>> CPU clock speed and L2 cache are not comparable. In fact, the
    | >>> faster the CPU clock speed, the more important a large L2 cache is.
    The
    | >>> more cores a CPU has, the more important a large L2 cache is.
    | >>>
    | >>> If you plan to overclock to ~ 3.0 GHz, then your CPU clock speed
    | >>> will be higher than any Core 2 Duo stock speed. Intel spends a lot
    | >>> of effort to achieve a design that balances CPU clock speed and L2
    | >>> cache size. I would certainly avoid any Core 2 Duo with a 1 MByte L2
    | >>> cache.
    | >>>
    | >>> An E6320 will certainly overclock by 50% or more, but the
    | >>> motherboard will have to handle a higher FrontSide Bus speed than
    | >>> would be necessary if you were instead overclocking an E4300 or
    | >>> E4400 to the same CPU clock speed. It is your choice - you aren't
    | >>> interested in games that require a
    | >>> lot of processing power. If your audio applications don't have to
    | >>> do processing in
    | >>> real time, then you likely don't even need a Core 2 Duo; the only
    | >>> penalty a
    | >>> smaller L2 cache will extract in an increased total time required to
    | >>> process
    | >>> a file. If your audio applications must do processing in real time,
    | >>> then a
    | >>> smaller L2 cache might require you choose lower quality audio. Why
    | >>> don't you look up the recommended system requirements for your audio
    | >>> processing programs?
    | >>>
    | >>> Phil Weldon
    | >>>
    | >>>
    | >>>
    | >>>
    | >>>
    | >>> "Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
    | >>> news:...
    | >>>> Thanks, Phil
    | >>>>
    | >>>> I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$. 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
    | >>>> news:...
    | >>>>> '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
    | >>>>> news:...
    | >>>>>> 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
    | >>>>>> news:47345752$0$20588$...
    | >>>>>>> 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
    | >
    | >
    | >
    |
    |
    Phil Weldon, Nov 12, 2007
    #16
  17. Bob Johnson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Bob Johnson wrote:
    > Thanks. Shaun
    >
    > What is the best 4xxx chip to get now? Price/performance/ocing?
    >
    > Is your 3.2 @ stock cooling? What board?


    Hi Bob,

    My CPU is an E4500, (2.2GHz, 11 x 400) although there is rumoured to be an
    E4600 released soon (some on-line stores even list it). My 3.2 isn't at
    stock cooling, although it will run it at stock, full load temps (Orthos and
    TAT together) were a little high for my liking, reaching 72°C. I bought and
    fitted a Thermaltake Mini Typhoon which dropped my temps around 15°C.
    Further fine-tuning, dropping vcore and testing stability (a time-consuming
    process) shaved off another 5°C. (So, extrapolating, that would be around
    68°C under full load with stock cooler).

    My mobo is rather nice, despite a few teething problems. It's an Asus P5K-E
    WiFi-AP. P35 northbridge, ICH9R southbridge. Firewire and two eSATA
    connectors. It seems OC-friendly wth the FSB range in BIOS going up to 800
    (!) I like that you can manually change the bootstrap setting which not only
    changes the latency of the Northbridge, allowing you to reach target OCs by
    removing FSB "walls" but also allows you a wider range of RAM speed options
    as RAM speed is a function of a divider applied to the FSB.

    It's a middle-priced "Bearlake" P35 board from Asus and the cheapest one
    that uses the same PCB as their more expensive models in the range.
    Everything that I've read and experienced (other than one glitch*) tell me
    it's a very good board. That said, there are probably similar offerings from
    Gigabyte and MSI etc. in the same price range. (It would be pointless
    talking price as I'm in New Zealand). This board will support 45nm CPUs and
    4 and maybe more cores leaving me a considerable upgrade option when prices
    on these CPUs drops in a couple years or less.

    *The glitch being that the vcore in BIOS isn't correct. It took me a while
    to discover this but CPU-Z and Asus' own Windows hardware monitor finally
    convinced me. This could however be unique to my particular board.

    Last night I played a little more with OCing this setup and had Orthos
    running just fine with the CPU at 3.4GHz. The full-load temps with my Mini
    Typhoon were high 60's (compared with 52 @ 3.2). It took 1.40v (CPU-Z
    readout, version 1.41 as 1.40 doesn't give vcore correctly) for stability at
    3.4GHz. I also posted/booted into windows at 3.5GHz with Orthos failing
    after 7 minutes, reporting an error, at the same vcore and temps. Perhaps
    more vcore would help....

    However, as we're yet to get into high summer here and I can expect ambient
    temps to rise, up to 10°C or more yet (no AC and I really have no use for
    more computing power), I've decided to continue to run at 3.2 for now, at a
    relatively balmy 52°C at maximum load and 1.33v vcore (*Not* 'default' as,
    with my board, it was too low even for stability at default speed. My
    glitch). Bear in mind that the maximum load temps I'm getting are with
    Orthos and TAT running and are highly unlikely to be ever seen under any
    other circumstances.

    I can't praise the Thermaltake Mini Typhoon's cooling performance enough
    although, that said, I did have to modify it (grind off corners, and lap) to
    get it to fit my board. However, the figures seem to show that this CPU/mobo
    combo will do 3.2GHz with the stock HSF at not unreasonable core temps
    long-term unless you're in a very hot environment. (Tom's overclocking
    reviews don't mention ambient temps that I've noticed and they're all
    conducted on an open testbench. No case to impede cooling and what's the bet
    they're in a nice, cool, air conditioned room? Hardly a real-world situation
    and should be taken with a pinch of salt.)

    I'm on a tight budget, the reason I went with the E4500 over a 2160 or
    similar was the 2MB L2 cache which both cores have access to. From what I
    could see, the performance increase of the larger, more accessable L2 was
    well worth the extra few bucks.

    Luck,
    --
    Shaun.


    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Bob Johnson wrote:
    >>> Thanks for the good info.
    >>>
    >>> BTW, this is what prompted my post:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/page6.html

    >>
    >> That's good and all that but nowhere that I saw in that article did
    >> they mention the E4xxx series of CPUs. They benched against E6x50
    >> CPUs with their 4MB L2 and higher price but not against the E4xxx
    >> that fall in between the two and have 2MB L2. For instance, my
    >> E4500, on a P35 board, runs at 3.2GHz effortlessly at _below_ stock
    >> voltage. I wonder where *it* would cone in their benchmarks? It's
    >> nowhere near the price of the E6x50's. Seems strange that it's not
    >> included in the tests, they mention Pentium 4s and Ds, no
    >> "Allendales" though. Yeah, just double-checked, couldn't see mention of
    >> an Allendale
    >> anywhere. Odd.
    >> --
    >> TTFN,
    >>
    >> Shaun.
    >>
    >>> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
    >>>>> I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$.
    >>>>> The 2160 should do 3.0 ghz but I'm not sure if the 6320 will.
    >>>>> From what I read, CPU speed will make up for Lack of L2 cache in
    >>>>> most cases. Is that true?
    >>>> _____
    >>>> No.
    >>>>
    >>>> CPU clock speed and L2 cache are not comparable. In fact, the
    >>>> faster the CPU clock speed, the more important a large L2 cache
    >>>> is. The more cores a CPU has, the more important a large L2 cache
    >>>> is. If you plan to overclock to ~ 3.0 GHz, then your CPU clock speed
    >>>> will be higher than any Core 2 Duo stock speed. Intel spends a lot
    >>>> of effort to achieve a design that balances CPU clock speed and L2
    >>>> cache size. I would certainly avoid any Core 2 Duo with a 1 MByte
    >>>> L2 cache.
    >>>>
    >>>> An E6320 will certainly overclock by 50% or more, but the
    >>>> motherboard will have to handle a higher FrontSide Bus speed than
    >>>> would be necessary if you were instead overclocking an E4300 or
    >>>> E4400 to the same CPU clock speed. It is your choice - you aren't
    >>>> interested in games that require a
    >>>> lot of processing power. If your audio applications don't have to
    >>>> do processing in
    >>>> real time, then you likely don't even need a Core 2 Duo; the only
    >>>> penalty a
    >>>> smaller L2 cache will extract in an increased total time required
    >>>> to process
    >>>> a file. If your audio applications must do processing in real
    >>>> time, then a
    >>>> smaller L2 cache might require you choose lower quality audio. Why
    >>>> don't you look up the recommended system requirements for your
    >>>> audio processing programs?
    >>>>
    >>>> Phil Weldon
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Bob Johnson" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> Thanks, Phil
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I guess for me, it will get down to faster CPU vs cache vs $$$.
    >>>>> 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
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> '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
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>> news:47345752$0$20588$...
    >>>>>>>> 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
    ~misfit~, Nov 12, 2007
    #17
  18. Bob Johnson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Phil Weldon wrote:
    >> What is the best 4xxx chip to get now? Price/performance/ocing?
    >>
    >> Is your 3.2 @ stock cooling? What board?

    > _____
    >
    > There is no ONE answer to "What is the best 4xxx chip to get now?
    > Price/performance/ocing?" question.
    >
    > The overclockability varies from one CPU to another EVEN if the model
    > number and stepping ARE THE SAME. Even if the each CPU is tested in
    > the exact same system. There is no guarantee that a E4500 you
    > purchase will have the same overclocking headroom as the E4500
    > ~misfit~ has.


    Good point. I seem to be lucky with silicon. Both my Barton and T'bred-B
    were great OCers. And my Celeron Mendicinos, Coppermines and Tualatins.
    Actually, it can't all be luck can it? <g> Actually, I know it can, I've
    seen others not so lucky. I've been asked once or twice to reproduce my OCs
    for others, on their machines and, despite spending lots of time on some,
    haven't often been able to.

    > Ambient room temperature can make or break an overclock. If the
    > ambient room temperature is 20 C, then you will very likely be able
    > to get a significantly higher overclock than if the room ambient
    > temperature is 30 C.


    I'm glad someone else considers this factor. I pretty much never hear
    reference to it.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Nov 13, 2007
    #18
  19. Bob Johnson

    Ed Medlin Guest

    >> Ambient room temperature can make or break an overclock. If the
    >> ambient room temperature is 20 C, then you will very likely be able
    >> to get a significantly higher overclock than if the room ambient
    >> temperature is 30 C.

    >
    > I'm glad someone else considers this factor. I pretty much never hear
    > reference to it.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > --
    > Shaun.


    It is something that those of us who have been doing this a long time
    probably take as a given, but we should mention more often to the newer
    folks starting into OCing. It is a very important point to mention.


    ed
    Ed Medlin, Nov 13, 2007
    #19
  20. Bob Johnson

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Ed Medlin wrote:
    >>> Ambient room temperature can make or break an overclock. If the
    >>> ambient room temperature is 20 C, then you will very likely be able
    >>> to get a significantly higher overclock than if the room ambient
    >>> temperature is 30 C.

    >>
    >> I'm glad someone else considers this factor. I pretty much never hear
    >> reference to it.

    >
    > It is something that those of us who have been doing this a long time
    > probably take as a given, but we should mention more often to the
    > newer folks starting into OCing. It is a very important point to
    > mention.


    Very true. For myself, I have a thermometer on my desk and all temps are
    considered as ambient + xx° as well as an empirical figure. That way, I know
    what the likely hottest temp I'm going to get in my office is and can
    predict core temps in the worst-case scenarios. (No AC in my home, if we get
    a heatwave I've been known to down-clock for the duration) Also I factor a
    couple extra degrees leeway in for when the dust needs cleaning out of the
    HS fins. <g>

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Nov 13, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    375
  2. Patrick Vervoorn
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    681
    Gypsy Baron
    Jan 3, 2008
  3. Patrick Vervoorn
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    439
    Gypsy Baron
    Jan 3, 2008
  4. John Weiss
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    437
    ~misfit~
    Jan 4, 2008
  5. John Weiss
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    379
    ~misfit~
    Jan 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page