importance of L2 cache

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I have a celeron 566 that'll run all day at 133FSB and at normal
voltage. that's 1.13ghz. (Actually it'll do 140FSB 1.189Ghz) So it's
just like a PIII or a Tualatin Celeron except for the L2 cache. How
much difference does there have to be in cpu Mhz to make a
substitution (this chip for a PIII) worth it considering the
difference in L2 cache? Does it depend on the application?

eric
8 answers Last reply
More about importance cache
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, ordered an army of hamsters to type:

    > I have a celeron 566 that'll run all day at 133FSB and at normal
    > voltage. that's 1.13ghz. (Actually it'll do 140FSB 1.189Ghz) So it's
    > just like a PIII or a Tualatin Celeron except for the L2 cache. How
    > much difference does there have to be in cpu Mhz to make a
    > substitution (this chip for a PIII) worth it considering the
    > difference in L2 cache? Does it depend on the application?
    >
    > eric
    >


    If you had two cpu's running at exactly the same speed and one had more L"
    cache than the other then that one will have a performance advantage in
    more applications than the other.

    If you are not able to upgrade the whole mobo cpu and ram and can find a P3
    for a reasonably cheap price then it might actually be worth the change of
    cpu.

    However, it may be a better use of your money saving for more of an upgrade
    than just a cpu. Particularly with the recent introduction of new Intel
    chipsets brining down the prices of some of the faster equipment than you
    have. Of course then you'd have the opportunity to change to AMD aswell
    then.

    I recommend thinking about it, do some research on newer chipsets and
    motherboards (they dont necessarilly have to be the most recent) and see
    what the prices are like. It is worth considering.

    love

    Kokoro
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    There very existence of an L2 cache is denial of the use of the word
    Celeron. So, what's a Tualatin Celeron?
    <eric@egypt.net> wrote in message
    news:r4kqk090coeesj3ehm0qlml88hb067dd7k@4ax.com...
    > I have a celeron 566 that'll run all day at 133FSB and at normal
    > voltage. that's 1.13ghz. (Actually it'll do 140FSB 1.189Ghz) So it's
    > just like a PIII or a Tualatin Celeron except for the L2 cache. How
    > much difference does there have to be in cpu Mhz to make a
    > substitution (this chip for a PIII) worth it considering the
    > difference in L2 cache? Does it depend on the application?
    >
    > eric
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    eric@egypt.net schrieb:

    > I have a celeron 566 that'll run all day at 133FSB and at normal
    > voltage. that's 1.13ghz. (Actually it'll do 140FSB 1.189Ghz)

    Not too shabby. Which stepping is it? (cD0, I bet - CPUID is 068A. I
    once read about a cD0 1 GHz PIII which would run happily at its nominal
    clock with just 1.35 V core.)

    > So it's
    > just like a PIII or a Tualatin Celeron except for the L2 cache. How
    > much difference does there have to be in cpu Mhz to make a
    > substitution (this chip for a PIII) worth it considering the
    > difference in L2 cache? Does it depend on the application?

    Let me list the differences first:

    Coppermine Celeron: 128K L2 4-way associative (like Mendocino).
    Coppermine PIII/Tualatin Celeron: 256K L2 8-way associative, faster.
    Tualatin PIII: Same as above, but with hardware prefetch added.
    PIII-S: Same as above, but with 512K L2 and prefetch.

    In benchmarks, the 850 MHz CuMine Celeron was found to be about equal to
    a 700 MHz CuMine PIII, so your 1.13 GHz variant would be about as fast
    as a PIII-933. Of course, the exact relationship would depend on the
    specific application. Something that strictly scales with core clocks
    and needs little cache access, like MP3 encoding, would be just as fast
    as on a 1.13 GHz PIII-S. In Q3A (which loves fast caches and high memory
    bandwidth) it would apparently be about on par with an 800EB. If you'd
    like a Celeron that's a whole lot faster when overclocked, try a
    Tualatin 900A or 1.0A (many, if not most 1.0As will run happily at 1.33
    GHz).

    Stephan
    --
    Meine Andere Seite: http://stephan.win31.de/
    PC#6: i440BX, 1xP3-500E, 512 MiB, 18+80 GB, R9k AGP 64 MiB, 110W
    This is a SCSI-inside, Legacy-plus, TCPA-free computer :)
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    eric@egypt.net wrote:

    > I have a celeron 566 that'll run all day at 133FSB and at normal
    > voltage. that's 1.13ghz. (Actually it'll do 140FSB 1.189Ghz) So it's
    > just like a PIII or a Tualatin Celeron except for the L2 cache. How
    > much difference does there have to be in cpu Mhz to make a
    > substitution (this chip for a PIII) worth it considering the
    > difference in L2 cache? Does it depend on the application?

    Yes - it depends on the application. If no other user knows details,
    Dr Google will help you;-)
    I remember suggestions that a Celeron corresponds in speed to a PIII
    minus 200 MHz, e.g. Celeron 800 ~ PIII 600, because of the L2 cache;
    but that's a _very_ rough estimate in any case.

    roy
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    That's very impressive, since I used to have a 566 and
    it just would not go over 707 no matter what. I'm now
    running a 1GHz cu Celeron II at 1.12 - Got a BX chipset here
    on a Abit BH6, using a slotket. I suspect x2 L2 alone is not worth
    the upgrade, probably no more than %10 or %15 boost.
    The only PIII worth considering is of the 512k variety,
    running 1.26 or better, which your motherboard may not
    support, and it's still relatively expensive and hard to find.
    I'm not going to bother, since I seriously doubt it's compatibility
    with my BX chipset.

    Next stop, a new Celeron D system, which looks very promising at
    the D0 stepping that started shipping in early July.


    <eric@egypt.net> wrote in message news:r4kqk090coeesj3ehm0qlml88hb067dd7k@4ax.com...
    > I have a celeron 566 that'll run all day at 133FSB and at normal
    > voltage. that's 1.13ghz. (Actually it'll do 140FSB 1.189Ghz) So it's
    > just like a PIII or a Tualatin Celeron except for the L2 cache. How
    > much difference does there have to be in cpu Mhz to make a
    > substitution (this chip for a PIII) worth it considering the
    > difference in L2 cache? Does it depend on the application?
    >
    > eric
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:31:27 +0200, Stephan Grossklass
    <sgrokla-nospam04q2@yahoo.de> wrote:


    >Not too shabby. Which stepping is it? (cD0, I bet - CPUID is 068A.

    Yeah, of course cD0. An SL5L5, 1.75v. not even listed on Intel's
    website. That's strange. But these are amazing chips. I have 4 of them
    and 3 of the 4 will do 133FSB at stock voltage.


    >Ionce read about a cD0 1 GHz PIII which would run happily at its nominal
    >clock with just 1.35 V core.)

    >Coppermine Celeron: 128K L2 4-way associative (like Mendocino).
    >Coppermine PIII/Tualatin Celeron: 256K L2 8-way associative, faster.
    >Tualatin PIII: Same as above, but with hardware prefetch added.
    >PIII-S: Same as above, but with 512K L2 and prefetch.


    >In benchmarks, the 850 MHz CuMine Celeron was found to be about equal to
    >a 700 MHz CuMine PIII, so your 1.13 GHz variant would be about as fast
    >as a PIII-933. Of course, the exact relationship would depend on the
    >specific application. Something that strictly scales with core clocks
    >and needs little cache access, like MP3 encoding, would be just as fast
    >as on a 1.13 GHz PIII-S. In Q3A (which loves fast caches and high memory
    >bandwidth) it would apparently be about on par with an 800EB. If you'd
    >like a Celeron that's a whole lot faster when overclocked, try a
    >Tualatin 900A or 1.0A (many, if not most 1.0As will run happily at 1.33
    >GHz).


    thanks for the information, Stephen.

    eric
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:55:59 GMT, "Raymond" <StopSpam@Now.net> wrote:

    Running this chip with an ordinary slocket on a P2b rev 1.10.

    Not interested in an upgrade, but was just wondering about how it
    compares to others in the family.

    thanks,
    e.

    >That's very impressive, since I used to have a 566 and
    >it just would not go over 707 no matter what. I'm now
    >running a 1GHz cu Celeron II at 1.12 - Got a BX chipset here
    >on a Abit BH6, using a slotket. I suspect x2 L2 alone is not worth
    >the upgrade, probably no more than %10 or %15 boost.
    >The only PIII worth considering is of the 512k variety,
    >running 1.26 or better, which your motherboard may not
    >support, and it's still relatively expensive and hard to find.
    >I'm not going to bother, since I seriously doubt it's compatibility
    >with my BX chipset.
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Lil' Dave wrote:
    > There very existence of an L2 cache is denial of the use of the word
    > Celeron.

    I can only remember Covington Celerons that had no L2-cache.

    >So, what's a Tualatin Celeron?

    A Celeron processor built on P6-architecture on a 0,13 micron process.
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus Celeron Cache Motherboards