X2 4800+ (2.4GHz + 2Mb cache) vs X2 4800+ (2.5GHz + 1Mb)

Is a larger cache better than megahertz for virtual machine hosting?

  • Yes (1Mb cache is better than 100Mhz)

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • No (100Mhz is better than 1Mb cache)

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4

mrescher

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2007
1
0
18,510
Hi there,

I've just bought a machine that is going to host virtual machines (linux/Xen)

I specifically ordered an X2 4800+, 2.4GHz with 1Mb cache per core, but I've been shipped a newer model which is 100MHz faster but has only 512k per core.

It seems to me that for a machine solely running virtual machines a meg of L2 cache is going to make far more difference than 100Mhz. (eg. cache misses are going to be more frequent and costly)

Does anyone know anything or have some links to back this up or should I not bother complaining?

Cheers

McE
 

nightscope

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2007
828
0
18,980
Hi there,

I've just bought a machine that is going to host virtual machines (linux/Xen)

I specifically ordered an X2 4800+, 2.4GHz with 1Mb cache per core, but I've been shipped a newer model which is 100MHz faster but has only 512k per core.

It seems to me that for a machine solely running virtual machines a meg of L2 cache is going to make far more difference than 100Mhz. (eg. cache misses are going to be more frequent and costly)

Does anyone know anything or have some links to back this up or should I not bother complaining?

Cheers

McE

Well it depends on a lot more than the amount of l2 cache for performance...but statistically speaking, 1 mb l2 cache more should have a better performance than 512 l2 cache and 100 more mhz. You can always overclock the processor if needed, which I wouldn't think is.