Re: 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- From: "fj" <jelenko@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:55:47 GMT
"Joe" <Joe@.> wrote in message
news:43128083$0$13557$8f2e0ebb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> How does a system with a 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache affect the normal user?
> Normal in the sense of no gaming, hardly any picture editing and
> mainly just burning a lot of images from the DVD/Video groups.
As a user, you don't need to worry about size of L2 cache - or any other
aspect of the CPU. It all comes down to actual performance. You can use
the CPU charts at Tom's Hardware to compare performance among CPU's.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html
>
> Are there any webpages which explain the difference for this question
> and the one below?
>
> While I'm at it, newer hard drives are coming out with 16MB caches
> replacing the 8MB standard - What are the benefits of 8 more megs?
.
- References:
- 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- From: Joe
- 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- Prev by Date: Re: Sound card recognized, but nonfunctional
- Next by Date: Good PSU unit for under £25 and CPU fan Help
- Previous by thread: Re: 1MB vs 2MB L2 Cache?
- Next by thread: onboard audio does not work
- Index(es):