Toledo vs Manchester..cache is confusing

[slmgringo]

sup everyone, even after reading the CPU 101, im still having trouble deciding on a processor.

"Although "the more L2 cache available, the better", also note that the more cache they cram onto a processor, the slower and less efficient it becomes and the more the cache becomes dependent on optimizations designed to improve cache hits"

I was looking @ the differences between the between the Mancester 4200 and the Toledo 4400** core chips, and the difference was the amount L2 cache (also stated in under the reccomendations section of CPU101). These are the 2 processors in my price range (500$). Now between these 2 processors there is almost a 100$ price difference and from reading about the cache it seems hard to decide b/c like it says "the more the better" but then the more cache the less effcient. Maybe im not understanding it correctly and after reading the CPU 101, im still not sure if i will need 1mb of cache. I entend to use this computer for gaming, graphic design, and music production. Thanks in advance

 

[TheChef]

L1 cache is the most efficient cache that the chip has. L2 cache comes behind L1 and then L3, introduced on some of Intel's chips, is even slower. Generally the more cache the better, and if you can afford it, than by all means get the extra cache.

 

[shupola]

L1 cache is the most efficient cache that the chip has. L2 cache comes behind L1 and then L3, introduced on some of Intel's chips, is even slower. Generally the more cache the better, and if you can afford it, than by all means get the extra cache.

you havent been reading the 101's.

i remember where it said something about too much cache can slow your processor somewhat, because it goes to the chache first or something like that.

 

[Hairy_Lee]

i would say that more cache is still better. i wouldn't say its less efficient but there would be a small amount of latency there. even though this may seem a factor i would still go with the cpu with more cache.
also, consider this; a sempron with 256K of cache running at 1.8 ghz lags a fair way behind an athlon with 512K of cache, even on a socket 754 model.

 

[Praetor]

"Although "the more L2 cache available, the better", also note that the more cache they cram onto a processor, the slower and less efficient it becomes and the more the cache becomes dependent on optimizations designed to improve cache hits"

Thats in reference to the Prescott vs Prescott2M ... the Prescott2M has twice the cache but the cache is 17% slower

Maybe im not understanding it correctly and after reading the CPU 101, im still not sure if i will need 1mb of cache. I entend to use this computer for gaming, graphic design, and music production

I wouldnt bother with it.