Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Audio/Video Benchmarks

Does Cache Size Really Boost Performance?
By

Display all 8 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    enzo matrix , July 3, 2010 6:08 PM
    this is awesome
  • 1 Hide
    Mousemonkey , July 3, 2010 8:02 PM
    Quote:
    this is awesome

    It's taken you two years for that? :p 
  • 0 Hide
    HansVonOhain , September 11, 2010 7:36 AM
    Great article. :D 
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 5, 2011 7:59 PM
    I like, it was helpfull read. no one could addord core 2 duo's in 2007 now we can, I didnt see yourcomment in 2007 HansVonOhain.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , April 2, 2011 9:43 PM
    I really loved this article.

    Thx "tomshardware" :) 
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , February 18, 2012 2:48 PM
    Memory were all so cheap all of a suddenly
  • 0 Hide
    blueme , October 26, 2012 9:35 AM
    Nice review!

    ~3 years ago I had the E8300 2.83 Ghz with 6MB cache for ~200$
    Now I have the E3200 with 1MB cache, overclocked at 2.88 for 20$

    The performance difference is negligible at best, especially considering the price. And although the E8400 doesn't cost that much, it's still around ~80$ used.
  • 0 Hide
    isidroco , January 30, 2013 10:41 PM
    I disagree with the conclusion, CACHE size does NOT matter, most cases are with less than 10% (with a max of 15% in winrar) difference between 1mb and 4mb. 10% is too little to be noticed in real world applications, there is no difference in waiting 9 or 10 seconds...