[mdlug] L1 & L2 Cache AMD & Intel

[Aaron Kulkis]

David Lane wrote:
> Currently I'm building a home office infrastructure, and I'm taking a good look at CPU's.  It seems that Intel offers CPU's with more L2 cache.  And the Q6600 is a good example and runs about $250 OEM +/- where the AMD Phenom starts at 199.00.  Both have 128k L1 cache, but the Intel Q6700  has 4M L2 Cache in addition to 128k L1 But is a wopping $539.00 
> 
> I do Have E6600 and E6400 Intel chips and am very happy with them.  The E6600 runs Open Suse 10.3 and the E6400 runs Windows XP (yes, there are a hand full of application that run only on windows that I need).  Both with  good SATA hard drives are quite responsive.
> 
> The Techs tell me that the cache helps make the system faster, and that is the $300 difference in the Q6600 and the Q6700. Currently I'm happy with my E6400 & E6600.  
> 
> Does any know what performance yield is the extra cache on the Q6700?

Phenom has an L3 cache, too.

This allows the L2 to be smaller (faster) without imposing a huge
performance of hit of going out to main memory when a loop exceeds
the size of the L2.

> 
> David C. Lane 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> _______________________________________________
> mdlug mailing list
> mdlug at mdlug.org
> http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug
>