 |
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
04-18-2006, 04:59 AM
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
banned
 Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: See above
Posts: 1,237
|
Will I notice a difference?
Will I notice a difference between the X2 4200+ and the X2 4400+? Same clocks, but the 4400+ has a bigger L2 cache. Is it worth paying ~100$ for an extra mb of cache? Especially in gaming.
|
|
|
|
04-18-2006, 05:32 AM
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 15
Posts: 2,842
|
Definetly not worth $100 price premium for an extra meg of cache. You'll hardly notice any difference.
__________________
DFI Lanparty UT nF4 SLI DR Athlon 64 3500+ Venice 1 Gig OCZ VX DDR500 DDR BFG GeForce 7800GT 160 Gig SATA HDD CD-RW DVD-ROM Antec NeoPower 480 Thermaltake Tsunami |
|
|
|
|
04-20-2006, 10:03 AM
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 235
|
besides i have heard and seen that sometimes a larger cache can slow a computer down! this is evident with Intel going back to a 512 cache from a meg in one of their processors because it was loosing performance!
__________________
Desktop - NEW SYSTEM!! CPU: Intel E8200 @ 3.4Ghz Mobo: Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4 RAM: 2GB Corsair TwinX6400C4DHX GRAPHICS: eVGA 8800GT 512MB HDD: 500GB & 320GB = 820GB CASE & Cooling: Antec 900 & Zalman 9700NT Laptop - Asus F3E-AP183C CPU: Core2 Duo T7250 @ 2.2Ghz RAM: 2GB Kingston 667 HDD: 160GB Seagate |
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
