Re: 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- From: dannysdailys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (dannysdailys)
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:32:19 GMT
This really has more to do with the processor making the right
predictions then anything else. Predicitons? Yes, the cache is
filled with what the system thinks you'll need. If it's wrong, it
has to flush the buffer and start over again. Since this is the
case, I really can't tell you if one is better then the other. But
the rule of thumb is; more cache/ memory is always better.
The hard drive is a different matter however. Where the hard drive
cache comes into play is mainly on boot up. It will take the command
files of your normal startup programs, cache them, and dump them to
the processor bus. This will give you performance you really don't
have. I'd like to see about a gig of cache on the drives.
New products are coming out however, and one is a 4 gig card that will
cache the hard drive for you and keep it in memory. They claim a 8
second boot with that setup.
.
- References:
- 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- From: Joe
- 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- Prev by Date: Re: 24 <-> 20 pin power supply
- Next by Date: Re: graphics card for still images
- Previous by thread: Re: 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- Next by thread: Re: 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- Index(es):