4 mb cache vs 2 mb cache? 800 fsb vs 667 mhz fsb?

How important is this and more importantly, is it worth the huge price premiums?

 

Depends on your use.

4MB L2 over 2MB L2 is a bit more useful than the 800MHz FSB over 667MHZ FSB.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

You decide whether those applications are often used and whether it's worth the price premium. As you can see, the biggest benefit to the larger cache is in encoding applications.

 

I have not delved too much into the cache's of intel processors, but I have personally known them to be a little "over-inflated" so to speak..

The difference in an AMD 1mb L2 and a 2mb intel l2 are not that great and outstanding. That said, the difference in a 4mb intel and a 2mb intel are not that extravagant either. The difference in price does not justify the performance and vice versa. I'd go with the 2mb and save some money. Put the money into some accessories.

That's just my opinion though. Someone may be able to shed some light, but I have seen the caches to be not what they seem.

The difference in 800 mhz fsb and 667 isn't that major either..it REALLY DEPENDS on what you are using the processor for..

 

Cache will give you benefits now. Having the 800 Mhz FSB will give a lot of upgrade options in the future.. basically future proofing your purchase.

We can't compare AMD processors here. In laptop context, until AMD starts making processors that provide decent battery life.. Intel / Centrino rules the notebook world.

 

Lol..ok, let's take your little OVER opinionated post on intel "ruling" the notebook world and forget you even THOUGHT about typing that on a forum that is going to be full of people with opinions.

We can easily compare AMD processors. How does battery life MAKE a laptop? Rofl..let me stop, you did the damage to yourself already.

 

The question is not whether 4MB provides advantages over 2MB L2 cache. Without a doubt, it does. Whether it is worth the price premium is another story altogether.

I presume because the original poster was asking about 667MHz versus 800MHz FSB processors, he's getting a Santa Rosa laptop, but has the option of 667MHz and 800MHz FSB CPUs. In that context, getting an 800MHz FSB CPU does not provide any additional upgradeability.

 

FYI all the current Intel Santa Rosa chipset supports only 667mhz externally to all components including memory. Thats why supported ram lists at 667mhz. The 800mhz FSB is just internal to the processor to allow it to reach higher clock speeds. In other words a processor that is 2ghz (667mhz FSB) and 2ghz (800mhz FSB) should perform exactly the same since they are effectivelly running at the same clock rate.

While the 2mb vs 4mb L2 cache sounds large, I dont see many apps that realy benefit from it at this stage.

 

No.

The 800MHz FSB is the connection from the CPU to the northbridge, which houses the memory controller. The memory bus runs at 667MHz, and dual channel at that if you install the appropriate RAM.

The FSB is not internal to the processor. It defines the speed at which data may be passed to the CPU.

 

my inspiron 1501 powered by a TL-60 gets 4-5 hours on battery while watching movies and surfing the web at the same time at 70%-80% brightness, i think thats pretty decent

 

What would be the sweet spot (price/performance ratio) in the processors for the Dell m1330?

Is the cheapest one good enough? B/c that's an extra $100 for a 1.8 ghz chip.

 

I'd say $1500... but i'm just guessing.

 

So the best bang for the buck chip right now in the m1330 is the:

1.8 ghz, 800 mhz, 2 mb cache chip?

I want to keep the computer for about 3-4 years.

I am not sure if there is a big leap in performance from 1.5 ghz to 2.0 ghz, etc...will I regret this in 3 years choosing the slowest processor? In my experience, it's the hard drive and ram that make most of the difference

 

I don't know if I should choose 1.5 ghz cpu (667FSB) or the 1.8ghz cpu (800FSB) on the inspiron 1420.
With the 1.5 Ghz cpu , the cpu:ram ratio would be 1:1, with 1.8 Ghz cpu the cpu:ram ratio would be 6:5?
So is the 1.8ghz cpu less efficient?
Sorry for the stupid question, I'm just a newb.

 

Yes, that is correct. When they don’t match 1:1, there is a performance penalty. But higher clock speed makes up for it. As a result, there is an overall performance increase in higher FSB.

 

No, there is no penalty. None. Zip. Zero. Not with the new Core 2 Duos.

Faster FSB will in fact give you more performance, even if the memory is not faster in this case.

So you get a faster FSB plus a faster clocked CPU. Win-win.

 

There is a big difference in my inspiron 6400 with t7200 cpu versus my hp dv2000t with regular core dual. The screens pop up faster and responds quicker. Buy the best processor you can afford.

 

Ok, let me rephrase that. When the FSB and Memory bus doesn’t match 1:1, efficiency is not 100%. But that doesn’t mean there is a performance loss. At the end, an 800MHz FSB processor will perform faster than a 667MHz FSB processor because of the higher FSB. But a 667MHz FSB processor works at 100% efficiency with 667MHz RAM while a 800FSB processor can not (that is what I meant by panelty). Sorry for the confusion.

 

What do you mean a 667MHz FSB processor works at 100% efficiency with 667MHz RAM? The FSB and memory interface are not related in this platform. In fact the chipset supports dual channel DDR2-667, which means it's providing twice the memory bandwidth of a 667MHz FSB and a bit less than twice for the 800MHz FSB.

Perhaps you're thinking of the AthlonXP days when running the FSB and RAM at 1:1 was optimal for performance? That's not the case anymore. A 667MHz FSB processor does not 'work at 100% efficiency' with 667MHz RAM with the Santa Rosa platform.