Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does cache size matter that much?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 11, 2007 4:47:22 AM

Hi

I am planning to get the Intel Pentium Dual Core E2180 Dual Core and over clock it to 2.7ghz at least but everyone I talked to says it is a crap cpu since it has low cache and that it will hinder all the other parts that I am planning to get.

I seen bench marks showing over clocking that it can compete with the top dual cores and also I hear in game play if your using a higher resolution its more on your graphic card not your cpu.

Specs:
graphic card: Diamond Viper Radeon HD 3850 256MB
cpu: Intel Pentium Dual Core E2180
memory: Corsair XMS2 TWIN2X2048-6400C4 2GB 2X1GB
monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 226BW 22IN
motherboard: Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L

Thanks

More about : cache size matter

December 11, 2007 5:06:09 AM

yes and no
for most people its low on the prioity
December 11, 2007 5:17:45 AM

They say it's not the amount of cache that matters... but how you use it... kidding! ;) 

*ahem*
The E2180 is a good choice if you are on a budget. Sure, the larger cache CPUs would be better, but at a cost.

If you want to save a few extra bucks, some cheaper RAM would do the trick as well. You don't really need expensive RAM when overclocking C2Ds, the minimal performance gains aren't really worth it IMO. With the money saved on the RAM, you can afford a better CPU, such as an E4500 for example.
Related resources
December 11, 2007 5:31:08 AM

Hi,

I'm running E1260@3GHz, HD3870 and 2GB DDR2 800MHz CL4. I did some CPU benchmarks using Windows performance logs (playing full screen) because I was also worried if 1MB cache is enough. I checked Crysis, COD4 and Lost Planet (always 1280x1024, high or maxed details, no AA, no AF). CPU usage in my tests is about 70%-80%. It means to me that the CPU is more than enough for now. I was able to get over 90% usage in Crysis CPU benchmark HIGH@800x600, but I'm not sure one plays in such settings.
December 11, 2007 6:02:50 AM

the tests I've seen put the performance difference at about 200mhz, ie

4mb 2.6 = 2mb 2.8 = 1mb 3.0

the 21xx overclock very well, my e2140 is sitting at 2.8 (8x350) with 1.325v, 60c load with stock hs/fan.

I agree about the cheap ram, you don't need expensive ram until you go over 1600 fsb, which you likely won't. my adata was $35 after mir and is at 840 4-4-4-12 2.0v use the money saved on an e4xxx or even better the 3870 with 512mb ram if you can.
December 11, 2007 8:01:39 AM

Why doesn't matter if you buy expensive to cheap RAM?
I had no idea.
December 11, 2007 8:13:07 AM

In current C2D/Q chips...
No
December 11, 2007 9:30:14 AM

cache size doesn't matter. I was told cache GIRTH is a lot more important.
February 25, 2008 4:32:14 AM

nvalhalla said:
the tests I've seen put the performance difference at about 200mhz, ie

4mb 2.6 = 2mb 2.8 = 1mb 3.0

the 21xx overclock very well, my e2140 is sitting at 2.8 (8x350) with 1.325v, 60c load with stock hs/fan.

I agree about the cheap ram, you don't need expensive ram until you go over 1600 fsb, which you likely won't. my adata was $35 after mir and is at 840 4-4-4-12 2.0v use the money saved on an e4xxx or even better the 3870 with 512mb ram if you can.


sorry to re-open this question but I've been wondering the same thing, especially since the new 6mb cache E8xxx series processors.

Based on your statement above: 6mb 2.4 = 4mb 2.6 = 2mb 2.8 = 1mb 3.0??
If I understand correctly then an E2160 overclocked to above 3Ghz will roughly be the same as a non overclocked E8200??? Does that apply to gaming performance? My friend wants to build a system but buy a budget cpu for now and then upgrade straight to 45nm quads once they come out and prices drop a little bit. He'll be using an X38 motherboard, with an HD3870 (upgrade to 2 of them later on)... Will the cpu performance be negligible enough to tolerate for about 6-8 months in newer games such as COD4, and Bioshock???
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2008 5:59:47 AM

nvalhalla said:
the tests I've seen put the performance difference at about 200mhz, ie

4mb 2.6 = 2mb 2.8 = 1mb 3.0

the 21xx overclock very well, my e2140 is sitting at 2.8 (8x350) with 1.325v, 60c load with stock hs/fan.

I agree about the cheap ram, you don't need expensive ram until you go over 1600 fsb, which you likely won't. my adata was $35 after mir and is at 840 4-4-4-12 2.0v use the money saved on an e4xxx or even better the 3870 with 512mb ram if you can.


depending on the apps but correct - about ~200mhz difference...
February 25, 2008 6:34:36 AM

just to make myself feel much better about this before going on recommending to my friend. :D 

An E2160 (assuming I can successfully overclock above 3.0Ghz) will show an INSIGNIFICANT loss in performance during "modern" gaming when compared to stock rated processors of 2.6Ghz or lower with 4 or even 6 mb of cache????????????????? again, rest of the system will consist of XMS2 DDR2800 ram, x38 mobo (not sure which one yet), and an HD3870 gpu... On a side note, if you can tell me which X38 mobo is good based on cost/performance ratio I would appreciate it.

sorry for repeating the same thing again, but it just seems a little too unbelievable that an overclocked 70 dollar processor can perform to the level of stock 200+ dollar processors.

anyway thanks for the prompt response!
February 25, 2008 7:52:21 AM

From a test with same speed cpu (over and underclock) but each time different cache seemed to be a big influence in gaming fps. More than CPU Ghz. Don't remember where but it was a dual core, maybe you could google it?
More in some games than others, but the fact it can keep things it uses often in cache speeds things up.
February 25, 2008 8:58:28 AM

RZO, every app will be different, but in modern gaming, the major factor is the graphics board. In general, any reasonable CPU (Core2Duo design running 2+ GHz) will power a good graphics card well enough so the CPU is not the bottleneck in performance.
Of course, not every e2xxx will OC to 200% of its rated speed, and by OCing the CPU warranty is voided, and you need to spend many hours testing to determine that a given OC is stable enough for use. Thus, most people spend more on the CPU in order not to have to deal with those hassles.
Finally, in historical terms, this is an unusual occurrence: "normally," CPUs are not so overclockable. In this case, it's just that Intel has such a good design that most of the e2xxx's they sell end up being "artificially" set to run at lower default FSBs. Essentially, they took a 3GHz/1333MHz design and set the FSB back to 800MHz; that doesn't make it not work anymore at 3GHz/1333MHz. A similar situation happened with the Pentium D 805, which was a 3+GHz/800MHz design artificially set to 533MHz FSB.
February 25, 2008 9:03:44 AM

Dirty_Barry said:
Why doesn't matter if you buy expensive to cheap RAM?
I had no idea.


Cheapo ram has higher latency, but core processors don't really mind that. I got some cheap ass corsair ddr2 800, with
4-4-4-12 timings. If i moved to some really snazzy ddr2 it would cost twice the price and give me like 3% extra performance, and that was if I really oc'd the living sh#te out of the cpu.

Honestly ddr2 800 with 4-4-4-12 timings or better is all you will ever need.
February 25, 2008 2:00:54 PM

thanks, I should probably start a new thread for this but since I'm already in here... let me know if you want me to move it!

The whole reason for my asking is simple. Right now my friend is on a fairly tight budget, but in 6-8 months he'll be able to spend much more money on parts... so I wanted to build him a system that's sub 500 USD right now, and have him buy a new CPU, or even a new CPU/mobo later on... Given the prices the following is what i have decided to purchase:

GA-P35-DS3L: 80.00
E2160: 70.00
HD3870: 190.00
Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800: 35.00
***Everything else he's recycling from a previous system...

What kind of performance can he expect in recent games such as bioshock/COD4/crysis, etc????? Assuming again that the 2160 can be OC'd to at least 2.8Ghz... Anyone have a similar system that can post their results would be greatly appreciated! His display has a max resolution of 1440x900... Will their be a significant boost in performance with a better cpu or motherboard? He doesn't mind spending an extra 200.00 for either if the performance is THAT much better... but also note that if he spends more, he won't be willing to OC the processor right away... Also, are any of the other sub 150 P35 boards ALOT better at overclocking then the one listed above????

Again, I'll probably start a new thread just so I can get as much input as possible, but anything you guys can tell me will be much appreciated!
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2008 8:21:16 AM

spoonboy said:
Cheapo ram has higher latency, but core processors don't really mind that. I got some cheap ass corsair ddr2 800, with
4-4-4-12 timings. If i moved to some really snazzy ddr2 it would cost twice the price and give me like 3% extra performance, and that was if I really oc'd the living sh#te out of the cpu.

Honestly ddr2 800 with 4-4-4-12 timings or better is all you will ever need.


4-4-4-12 is decent for 800mhz!
February 27, 2008 9:43:20 AM

I forgot that reveiw was here at Tom's, I could not find it anymore ;-)
March 10, 2008 1:28:47 AM

RZO - get at least the DS3R version of that MB. It only costs about $30 more and has lots of ports and RAID; beside that, it's always a pain upgrading MBs later, as you have to reinstall Windows, etc.
March 10, 2008 2:09:54 AM

I think Toms or Anandtech did a cache size review and it ends up being at most a 10% boost in some apps so if your on a budget as long as it has 1 or more megs of cache you should be ok.
March 10, 2008 2:44:16 AM

m1ddy said:
cache size doesn't matter. I was told cache GIRTH is a lot more important.


I loled
a b à CPUs
March 14, 2008 6:33:12 AM

Lets look at this another way shall we. Don't worry about the CPU, worry about the GPU. You want a 256Mb 3850 to power a 22 inch LCD? I'm not sure what the native res is on that monitor, but I'm thinking you are going to want something a little beefier then a 3850.

The CPU will be fine, get a better video card.
March 14, 2008 8:09:39 AM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
If you plan to OC...Then no, cache size does not matter.
The Mhz boost makes up for the lower cache.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2...
Impressive for a sub $100 CPU.


How does that work? A C2D with more cached, overclocked to the same clockspeed, will still outperform it, so cache size still does matter.

The 'MHz boost' doesn't 'make up' for anything. Clock the C2D up to 3.4GHz and see which one comes out ahead. ;) 
March 14, 2008 8:31:51 AM

epsilon84 said:
How does that work? A C2D with more cached, overclocked to the same clockspeed, will still outperform it, so cache size still does matter.

The 'MHz boost' doesn't 'make up' for anything. Clock the C2D up to 3.4GHz and see which one comes out ahead. ;) 

True, but I am a firm believer in getting the most for as little as possable. Spending the money saved going with a "budget" CPU on a better video card will give you more performance. Not everyone has bucketloads of cash.
Truth be told, most people do not use their PCs to win a benchmark competition. With the next generation of Intel CPUs filtering into the market going "budget" now and upgrading when the supply/demand situation settles (and price drops start) seems to be the best option IMO. Then you will not have to worry about cache size.

BTW did you read the link?
"The table above shows the advantage of the overclocked Pentium E2160 very clearly. It loses to Core 2 Extreme X6800 with 4MB L2 cache only in a few applications. It means that you can squeeze the performance of Intel’s top dual-core processor from a sub-$100 CPU, no matter how unbelievable it sounds."



March 14, 2008 8:51:57 AM

Yes, I did read the link.

It doesn't make your statement any more true. Cache size matters at ALL clockspeeds, and it matters whether you overclock or not. I am simply disagreeing with your point that cache size doesn't matter if overclocking. I am NOT disagreeing with you that the E21x0 chips aren't great value, they are.

Overclocking an E21x0 chip to 3.4GHz to surpass the level of a stock 2.93GHz C2D illustrates the point that you need a ~15% higher clockspeed on an E21x0 chip to match the performance of a C2D.
March 14, 2008 9:06:37 AM

e2160 at 3.4 = $70
X6800 at 2.93 = $1000
Close to or slightley better performance with a OCed $70 processor.

The money would be more wisely spent on a better video card as it will give you a much bigger increase in gaming than more cache on a CPU with a lesser video card.

You are right cache size does matter but not as much as a better video card in gaming performance, especially with the monitor the OP has chosen (native resolution is 1680 x 1050)
March 14, 2008 5:22:05 PM

I've got an e2160, going to overclock it once thermal paste is settled.

Cache size does make a difference, but it's just whether you think the difference is worth £100 or so. For me, it wasn't worth it. I'd rather spend the cash getting less cache (see what I did there) but a better graphics card, as I was on a very tight budget.
March 14, 2008 5:48:24 PM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
e2160 at 3.4 = $70
X6800 at 2.93 = $1000
Close to or slightley better performance with a OCed $70 processor.

The money would be more wisely spent on a better video card as it will give you a much bigger increase in gaming than more cache on a CPU with a lesser video card.

You are right cache size does matter but not as much as a better video card in gaming performance, especially with the monitor the OP has chosen (native resolution is 1680 x 1050)


That is a ridiculous comparison and you know it, and its totally off topic too. Why do people always resort to such petty attempts to win an argument? The X6800 was the top end EXTREME EDITION C2D back in 2006, hence the pricetag. It's since been discountinued and has been superseded by MUCH cheaper and faster CPUs like the E8400 and E6850. While you're at it with ridiculous comparisons, you might want to compare the E2160 to the P4 965EE as well, it cost $1000 back in 2005! :lol: 

The fact is that you said cache size doesn't matter when overclocking, which is wrong. Cache size DOES matters, more is always better. Whether the extra performance is worth the expense is another issue altogether.
March 15, 2008 2:54:57 AM

epsilon84 said:
That is a ridiculous comparison and you know it, and its totally off topic too. Why do people always resort to such petty attempts to win an argument? The X6800 was the top end EXTREME EDITION C2D back in 2006, hence the pricetag. It's since been discountinued and has been superseded by MUCH cheaper and faster CPUs like the E8400 and E6850. While you're at it with ridiculous comparisons, you might want to compare the E2160 to the P4 965EE as well, it cost $1000 back in 2005! :lol: 

The fact is that you said cache size doesn't matter when overclocking, which is wrong. Cache size DOES matters, more is always better. Whether the extra performance is worth the expense is another issue altogether.


http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/24/does_cache_size_...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2...

The x6800 is still one of the top dual core processors. The X6800 was used in both articles in comparison to the e2160. I am not attempting to win an arguement here, I already have. The OP wanted to know if the e2180 over clocked will hinder the rest of his system. Slightly less than or better performance than one of the top end dual core prossers answers the question. Sure you can gain more performance from a processor with more cache, but if your funds are limited the money is better spent elseware.
March 15, 2008 3:37:03 AM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/24/does_cache_size_...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2...

The x6800 is still one of the top dual core processors. The X6800 was used in both articles in comparison to the e2160. I am not attempting to win an arguement here, I already have. The OP wanted to know if the e2180 over clocked will hinder the rest of his system. Slightly less than or better performance than one of the top end dual core prossers answers the question. Sure you can gain more performance from a processor with more cache, but if your funds are limited the money is better spent elseware.


Again, the X6800 has nothing to do with the topic. The discussion was about cache size and the affect it has on performance. In regards to the OP, it depends on the games he plays, and at what resolutions. In some CPU limited games, the E2180 (even overclocked) would be holding him back slightly compared to a faster C2D.
March 15, 2008 4:16:56 AM

epsilon84 said:
Again, the X6800 has nothing to do with the topic. The discussion was about cache size and the affect it has on performance. In regards to the OP, it depends on the games he plays, and at what resolutions. In some CPU limited games, the E2180 (even overclocked) would be holding him back slightly compared to a faster C2D.


You said it all right there.
Using the money saved going with an e2xxx to get a better video card would be more than a slight change in gaming performance. It would be a performance gain you don't need a benchmark to see.
And yes the x6800 has everything to do with this topic, the OP wanted to know if overclocking a "budget" processor with low cache would hurt gaming performance. The link I posted showed a not so budget high end processor (X6800) get "pwned" by a sub-$100 CPU. Are you saying the performance of the X6800 is so bad that the scores of the OCed E2160 are not good enough to game with? The OP obiviously has a budget target and would not be looking at "low end" CPUs if money was not an issue.
March 15, 2008 4:53:23 AM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
You said it all right there.
Using the money saved going with an e2xxx to get a better video card would be more than a slight change in gaming performance. It would be a performance gain you don't need a benchmark to see.
And yes the x6800 has everything to do with this topic, the OP wanted to know if overclocking a "budget" processor with low cache would hurt gaming performance. The link I posted showed a not so budget high end processor (X6800) get "pwned" by a sub-$100 CPU. Are you saying the performance of the X6800 is so bad that the scores of the OCed E2160 are not good enough to game with? The OP obiviously has a budget target and would not be looking at "low end" CPUs if money was not an issue.


Why do you keep insisting on using a discontinued 2006 era CPU for comparison? Just because the articles used it as a reference point doesn't make the comparison any less absurd when you consider the alternatives available today. For example, you can overclock an E8400 to 4GHz and it would absolutely cream the E2160. Yes, it is a $200+ CPU against a $90 CPU, but my point is that cache DOES matter, especially in gaming.

As fair as I'm aware, the OP is not planning to 'upgrade' the GPU with any potential savings, he is simply asking if an E2180 @ 2.7GHz+ will bottleneck the Radeon 3850 in gaming. My only answer, without knowing the resolution and games he intends to play - is that it could potentially be holding him back a bit.
March 15, 2008 5:32:07 AM

epsilon84 said:
Why do you keep insisting on using a discontinued 2006 era CPU for comparison? Just because the articles used it as a reference point doesn't make the comparison any less absurd when you consider the alternatives available today. For example, you can overclock an E8400 to 4GHz and it would absolutely cream the E2160. Yes, it is a $200+ CPU against a $90 CPU, but my point is that cache DOES matter, especially in gaming.

As fair as I'm aware, the OP is not planning to 'upgrade' the GPU with any potential savings, he is simply asking if an E2180 @ 2.7GHz+ will bottleneck the Radeon 3850 in gaming. My only answer, without knowing the resolution and games he intends to play - is that it could potentially be holding him back a bit.


The e2160 can be had for $70. What I am telling the OP is he will get more performance in gaming going with the "budget" CPU overclocking it and spending the money that would of been spent on a more expensive CPU on a better video card. The performance gain of 1Mb more cache compared to the gain from a better video card like the HD3870 is a lot more than a slight gain.
BTW what do you have against the X6800? Is it not still one of the top end dual cores? Or has the performance dropped since the last time it was tested? Forget the price and the date it was discontinued and look at the benchmark scores.

March 15, 2008 5:59:43 AM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
The e2160 can be had for $70. What I am telling the OP is he will get more performance in gaming going with the "budget" CPU overclocking it and spending the money that would of been spent on a more expensive CPU on a better video card. The performance gain of 1Mb more cache compared to the gain from a better video card like the HD3870 is a lot more than a slight gain.
BTW what do you have against the X6800? Is it not still one of the top end dual cores? Or has the performance dropped since the last time it was tested? Forget the price and the date it was discontinued and look at the benchmark scores.


The OP mentions the E2180, which is closer to $80 I think. Prices have gone down a bit since I last checked, they used to be around $90.

Anyhow, his question wasn't whether to spend more money on the GPU vs CPU, but rather whether the CPU would be holding back the rest of his planned system.

I have nothing against the X6800, it was an awesome (and extremely expensive) CPU back in its day. Yes, it *was* a $1000 CPU, keyword being *was*... past tense. ;) 

Nowadays you can get an E8400 for about 1/4 the cost (should be 1/5 if not for price gouging), and it performs 10% better than the X6800.

Btw, L2 cache scaling in UT3... http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=2

Quote:
In order to close the performance deficit, you'd have to run a Pentium Dual-Core at almost a 20% higher frequency than a Core 2 Duo E4000, and around a 35% higher frequency than a Core 2 Duo E6000 series processor.

March 15, 2008 7:03:24 AM

epsilon84 said:
The OP mentions the E2180, which is closer to $80 I think. Prices have gone down a bit since I last checked, they used to be around $90.

Anyhow, his question wasn't whether to spend more money on the GPU vs CPU, but rather whether the CPU would be holding back the rest of his planned system.

I have nothing against the X6800, it was an awesome (and extremely expensive) CPU back in its day. Yes, it *was* a $1000 CPU, keyword being *was*... past tense. ;) 

Nowadays you can get an E8400 for about 1/4 the cost (should be 1/5 if not for price gouging), and it performs 10% better than the X6800.

Btw, L2 cache scaling in UT3... http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=2

Quote:
In order to close the performance deficit, you'd have to run a Pentium Dual-Core at almost a 20% higher frequency than a Core 2 Duo E4000, and around a 35% higher frequency than a Core 2 Duo E6000 series processor.


A 35% increase in the clockspeed of a e2160 would only put it at 2.7Ghz.
All of the scores comparing the three cache sizes are over 90 fps, so the arguement is pointless. Yes a processor with more cache gets better scores but at what point do those scores become meaningless? 90 fps or 120fps is still the same at 60Hz or 75Hz. Unless you run a benchmark test you will not know if a processor gets more or less fps at those rates. When the fps drops below the video refresh rate you can see it but anything over your refresh rate is lost.
March 15, 2008 7:11:37 AM

4745454b said:


The CPU will be fine, get a better video card.


The CPU matters most in games that really need a quad core, like Supreme Commander, or in synthetics like 3DMark06, where a lower than expected score with a high end card can be due to weaker CPU tests (i.e. my X2 4600+ with a 3870x2). In actual games, it still does okay.

I gave a friend advice at Fry's when he bought a 20" NEC LCD with 1680 x 1050 resolution today. I told him to get a new graphics card too. He has a 7600gs I gave him last year and I recommended he use a bit more of his bonus for a 9600gt they had on sale.

He's sticking with the 7600gs because he mostly plays WoW, but he's thinking of LOTR Online instead (he's bored with the Horde :lol:  ). He has an Athlon X2 4200+ Brisbane for his CPU. He'll have to lower the settings for more modern games to get the 65fps he's used to in WoW. I saw Quake Wars at Fry's on a 24" HP LCD with an 8800gt and it only got a consistent 30 fps.

Anyways, I didn't get my 22" LCD after all, I'll save up and get a 24" NEC this time next month. My card shines at 1920 x 1200, if Anandtech and Tom's reviews can be believed. I also plan on going Phenom 9750 with CrossfireX once the 4850's arrive. That should push pixels well enough, when ATI gets the CrossfireX drivers worked out.
March 15, 2008 7:17:48 AM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
A 35% increase in the clockspeed of a e2160 would only put it at 2.7Ghz.
All of the scores comparing the three cache sizes are over 90 fps, so the arguement is pointless. Yes a processor with more cache gets better scores but at what point do those scores become meaningless? 90 fps or 120fps is still the same at 60Hz or 75Hz. Unless you run a benchmark test you will not know if a processor gets more or less fps at those rates. When the fps drops below the video refresh rate you can see it but anything over your refresh rate is lost.


:lol:  I suggest you read the quote again genius.

Yes, the framerates are high, but they are average framerates, not minimum. The minimum framerates would also be substantially higher on the E4xxx and E6xxx as well, which is what matters more than the average framerate.

Face it - cache size matters, especially in gaming. If you have proof otherwise, then provide it.
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2008 7:56:00 AM

The core2 chips need a decent cache - the bigger the better.

Put your money in your pocket and buy the slowest cpu with the biggest cache ... then overclock it.

Even a moron can overclock a Core2 cpu ... there is zero skill needed ... bar finding the sweet spot where more voltage produces diminishing return and increased current draw.

What cpu would that be??

E6xxx or E8xxx
March 15, 2008 8:47:37 AM

epsilon84 said:
:lol:  I suggest you read the quote again genius.

Yes, the framerates are high, but they are average framerates, not minimum. The minimum framerates would also be substantially higher on the E4xxx and E6xxx as well, which is what matters more than the average framerate.

Face it - cache size matters, especially in gaming. If you have proof otherwise, then provide it.



Where is your proof that the minimum framerates are so much better with a processor with more cache? Since they are not shown and you only have average frame rates you have no ground to stand on.
I did not deny that more cache is better, I stated that you can gain the same or better performance by overclocking a "budget" processor. And since the OP has no qualms about overclocking then...NO, CACHE SIZE WILL NOT MATTER.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_cor...
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2332&c...
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2008 4:49:58 PM

Perhaps you ladies haven't realized this, but you've managed to muck up a perfectly fine thread. Quit your bitching in public, take it to PM if you feel this strongly about everything.

To the OP, let me try to explain what they are talking about, but without the attitude. Drag0n is claiming that cache size difference doesn't really matter for games. 84 is claiming that there is a difference, and to say otherwise is wrong. Reality is they are both right. The chip with more cache will be faster at the same frequency, or a slightly lower frequency. However, as drag0n pointed out, you might not ever even see this difference. Yes its faster, but its not like a punch in the face from Mike Tyson. Its more like a kick in the gut from a baby wearing soft booties. I stand by my original idea. I still haven't looked up the res for that monitor, but as a 22", I'm sure its big. I'm still not convinced that a 3850 will be able to handle it. You should probably try to get an 8800GT. Don't worry about the 2180 "bottlenecking" the 8800GT, in gaming it will do fine.
!