Yukon Trooper Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Not asking if 512kb vs 1mb cache is a major difference. I've read about 10 different places that the larger cache is maybe a 5% gain. However I did see in a benchmark that FEAR ran 8.9% better with the extra cache. Both cores were clocked to 2000mhz. There were 2 other games as well but the improvements were less. I know FEAR is a system hog so maybe the cache matters more in higher resource demanding games? What I want to know is if a larger cache will matter in up and coming games such as Crysis, or if that average performance gains of 5% will stay indeffinately. Is it because games have not been written in code that takes advantage of the extra cache yet? I think these are the questions that need to be answered not the classic "Is 1mb vs 512kb a big difference?", as this question only yields the answer "5% gain buddy go with 512." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACarter02 Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 I have one word for you: CONROE. 4 meg shared cache, killer benchies. Its the cache that gets the chip this performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleDavid218 Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 I have one word for you: CONROE. 4 meg shared cache, killer benchies. Its the cache that gets the chip this performance.In a way, yes, but do you have any basis for these claims? Even the 2MB cache Core 2 Duos rape AMD 64... the cache does make a difference but it's not as big as you make it sound Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbeaver Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 that.... and cost problem here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Trooper Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Well first of all I wont be buying a Conroe system anytime soon if ever as I just purchased this system. It's possible I might buy one in the future but by that time AMD could have a better processor as that is how the manufacture war goes: back and forth. I just want to know if the cache will matter for apps (mainly games) coming out in the future, not an argument about AMD 64 vs Conroe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleDavid218 Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 It's a loosing arguement. Since the code hasn't been written all we can do is speculate. I'm guessing the margin of performance between arse loads of cache and a lot of cache won't ever be huge, but like I said this is only speculating... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now