Cash Err... Cache

[Kingfisher]

I have been looking over reviews and articles concerning the effect of the L2 cache applied to Core 2 Duos and Quads , specifically the penryn and wolfdales and I am intrigued.

 

Point 1: This review shows the Q8200 with half the cache of the famed Q6600 can run with it more or less.

Point 2:our own review of the Q8300. Ok it didnt smoke the Q6600 but it runs with it more or less.

Point 3:Ok it's a euro review of the Q9400 which again holds its own here. ( disclaimer: not that there is anything wrong with euro reviews )

 

The wolfdales appear to lag behind unless you specifically are gaming, which imho will change over the next few years.

Is it really necessary to go with the big 12MB cache for gaming, video editing, video encoding , etc.

I just don't know what to think about this.

Discuss?

[IVIYTH0S]

I have been looking over reviews and articles concerning the effect of the L2 cache applied to Core 2 Duos and Quads , specifically the penryn and wolfdales and I am intrigued.

 

Point 1: This review shows the Q8200 with half the cache of the famed Q6600 can run with it more or less.

Point 2:our own review of the Q8300. Ok it didnt smoke the Q6600 but it runs with it more or less.

Point 3:Ok it's a euro review of the Q9400 which again holds its own here. ( disclaimer: not that there is anything wrong with euro reviews )

 

The wolfdales appear to lag behind unless you specifically are gaming, which imho will change over the next few years.

Is it really necessary to go with the big 12MB cache for gaming, video editing, video encoding , etc.

I just don't know what to think about this.

Discuss?

i never like to invest money in the lower cache models (especially if one is to invest in a quad) I want it to be as multi-talented as possible, assuming that some hardworking applications would need a lot of cache. I'm not actually sure how much better it makes the processor. I mean AMD processors have like no cache and get by so it may depend on if the architecture makes good use of it. http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/images/smilies/dunno.gif

[ccokeman]

If you look at the apps that are multi threaded and use the cache and 4 cores you see big differences. Win Rar and Cinebench 4thread testing shows this off.

[IVIYTH0S]

If you look at the apps that are multi threaded and use the cache and 4 cores you see big differences. Win Rar and Cinebench 4thread testing shows this off.

ya I do love my WinRar performance on my quad, do you think folding would work better with more cache. I remember how much better my computer folded per core moving up from my e6600 which only had 2MB of cache per core, to 3MB of cache per core on my Q9450.

[Krieg1337]

Don't go with those new Q8200/300 as they are not that great, kinda for the ones who want a really cheap quad, but that isn't so great. You could get the Q6600 as it is only $190 on newegg.

 

Edit: Newegg put the price of the Q6600 up to $195 <_<

Edited January 29, 2009 by Darkfuneral1337

[IVIYTH0S]

Don't go with those new Q8200/300 as they are not that great, kinda for the ones who want a really cheap quad, but that isn't so great. You could get the Q6600 as it is only $190 on newegg.

 

Edit: Newegg put the price of the Q6600 up to $195 <_<

you are right, and thank demand for that.

 

 

Ebay has them for $162.00 or cheaper if you bid on them.

[Kingfisher]

Well as my GF likes to throw in my face that bigger is better. In terms of real-world performance if the extra cache worth the extra money? I can see the difference in benchmarks but it doesn't appear to be staggering gains for the amount of money. Q6600 not counting in the mix because it is a kent and not a Yorkie.

[IVIYTH0S]

Well as my GF likes to throw in my face that bigger is better. In terms of real-world performance if the extra cache worth the extra money? I can see the difference in benchmarks but it doesn't appear to be staggering gains for the amount of money. Q6600 not counting in the mix because it is a kent and not a Yorkie.

It can keep up with the Yorkies, the Q6600 is about even clock for clock with my processor (when clocked to the same speed) For the money I think it's one of the best deals for an intel quad, the second being the 920 i7 (since it just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper)

[Kingfisher]

Though it is a year and a few months old, this Tom's Hardware article is interesting.

I really can't decide if it worth my money to quit being a miser and shell out the coin for the Q9X50s or just settle for the cheapest Q.

I don't need one for work or play but more or less just curious in general to see how they clock/bench.

[IVIYTH0S]

Though it is a year and a few months old, this Tom's Hardware article is interesting.

I really can't decide if it worth my money to quit being a miser and shell out the coin for the Q9X50s or just settle for the cheapest Q.

I don't need one for work or play but more or less just curious in general to see how they clock/bench.

i think you outta run that e6600 into the grave (even if it takes over over clocking) lol I don't think ya should get a quad just to get one IMO

[Kingfisher]

i think you outta run that e6600 into the grave (even if it takes over over clocking) lol I don't think ya should get a quad just to get one IMO

I am working on the E6600's grave. It'll turn 2 years old next week.

Why don't you think I should get a Q?

I never played with a Q before and want to. Please please, can I huh huh?

[IVIYTH0S]

I am working on the E6600's grave. It'll turn 2 years old next week.

Why don't you think I should get a Q?

I never played with a Q before and want to. Please please, can I huh huh?

you want mine, and then I can get an i7? LOL