Categories:

Conclusion

02:52 - Wednesday 24 October 2007 by Patrick Schmid
Source: Tom's Hardware UK – Keywords: processor, cache, size
Categories: Hardware

Conclusion

Ad

While cache size only had a limited impact on the synthetic benchmarks such as PCMark05, the performance difference in most real-life benchmarks was significant. This was surprising at first, because experience tells us that performance differences can typically be found in most synthetic benchmarks, while little of it is eventually reflected in real-life benchmarks.

To answer the question in my title: Yes, cache size has become important, at least for the current Core 2 Duo processor generation. We used a 4-MB Core 2 Extreme X6800, a 2 MB Core 2 Duo E4400 and a Pentium Dual Core E2160, which effectively is a Core 2 Duo with only 1 MB L2 cache. All of the devices were operated on the same test system at a 266-MHz Front Side Bus speed, and with the multiplier set to 9 to reach 2400 MHz. The only difference is the cache size, since all current dual core processors except the old Pentium D are created equal. Yield issues or market demand determines whether Intel decides that a particular die can become a Core 2 Extreme Edition or a Pentium Dual Core.

Your opinion counts. Take part in our survey for a chance to win over £3,000 in prizes!

If you compare the benchmark results of the 3D shooters Prey and Quake 4 with typical gaming benchmark results in our CPU Charts, the performance difference of 1 MB vs. 4 MB L2 cache roughly equals one clock speed increment. The same applies to the video transcoding benchmarks for the DivX 6.6 and XviD 1.1.2 codecs and file compression using WinRAR 3.7. The CPU-intensive benchmarks of 3DStudio Max 8, the Lame MP3 Encoder or the H.264 Encoder V2 by MainConcept don’t benefit much from increasing cache sizes, though.

Still, Intel’s concept of utilizing the available silicon real estate, which becomes available by shrinking dies to 65 nm and soon to 45 nm, makes a lot of sense for the Core 2 Duo architecture. The L2 cache has been known to be very efficient, especially since it is shared by both processor cores. Hence, it can level the impact of different RAM speeds and prevent Front Side Bus bottlenecks. And it does so very well, as we could see how the test processor’s performance with only one megabyte second level cache fell clearly behind.

From this perspective, upgrading the L2 cache from up to 4 MB to a maximum of 6 MB for the upcoming 45-nm dual core Penryn processors (Core 2 Duo E8000 series) makes a lot of sense. Not only does the shrink from 65 to 45 nm give Intel more headroom to increase the cache size, but the company will again offer more performance thanks to the increased cache size. However, the most important benefit is due to how Intel can offer more processor variants with6 MB, 4 MB, 2 MB or even 1MB L2 cache. In doing so, Intel utilizes an even higher percentage of the dies on a wafer despite some scattered defects that might have forced Intel to throw dies away in the past. Large cache sizes seem to be both important for both performance and Intel’s balance sheet.


Talkback
nick001 25/10/2007 11:23
Hide
-0+
nick001
If possible, I'd like to see comparisons between the AMD and Intel CPU's with the cache disabled. Would the performance loss on the AMD processors be less as they have 512Kb/1Mb in comparison the Intel's 1/2/4Mb and due to the integrated memory controller?
Or is the Core2Duo's architecture so much more superior that it will still beat the "more elegant solution"?
Geffen 25/10/2007 05:46
Hide
-0+
Geffen
Is the question not whether cache is benfical but whether it is good use of the silicon real estate. When the Athlon upgraded from the Thunderbird core to the Palomino core with no increae is cache size it got about 5% faster for a minor increase in the transitor count (37 million to 37.2). When they upgraded from Thoroughbred to Barton which double the cache from 256kb to 512kb resulted in a huge transitor count increase from 37.6 to 54 million for a 5% speed increase. Based on this it seems to me that adding cache is a lazy but expensive way to increase performance by the chip manfactures and it would be better if they spent more time looking at other ways to improve their chips.
Allubz 25/10/2007 09:53
Hide
-0+
Allubz
Just a bit of a shame you didn't add to the conclusion that the PRICE difference between the processors compared to the PERFORMANCE difference between them.
Short: Price-performance

Because PP-wise:
E2160 $72.00
E4400 $129.99
X6800 $985.00
Prices from Newegg (in most countries the differences are even bigger)

So the av. difference at the same clock speed between the E2160 and the X6800 is about 10% and the price difference is nearly a horrible 1400%!!

Like most reviews IF you add anything like this, the conclusion will probably be:

If you've got a budget then consider taking the cheapest E2100 serie. If you want to build your-average PC take a E4000 serie and well, if you've got a wallet you found to empty then hit it with a grand to get rid of it before the cops find out.

Anyway, my point is that I think Toms should inform people about reasonable price performance differences. If more review sites do this then manufacturers will ofcourse keep higher prices, but will see a drop in buys of these products and see their mid-range products being bought and used very well. (or they'll start producing low -and mid-range products that are very limited so they can't compete at any rate with the high-end parts).

Just my two cents...
jamesalexw 07/11/2007 08:39
Hide
-0+
jamesalexw
Actually the first processor to have on-die full speed 256kb L2 cache was the AMD K6-III, not the Intel Pentium III Coppermine.

The K6-III was released in Febuary 1999, Coppermine Pentium III's didn't appear until late October.



Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



Google Ads