Version : 8.0Characters "Dragon_Charater_rig"rendering HTDV 1920x1080
Cinebench
Version : R101 CPU, x CPU run
Synthetics
PCMark05 Pro
Version : 1.2.0CPU and Memory TestsWindows Media Player 10.00.00.3646Windows Media Encoder 9.00.00.2980
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
~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.
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...