Oic. But for example E6600 oledi got 4MB L2 cache, so the E6650 should got 8MB L2 cache???
Also how much d performance increases with new FSB1333?
Core 2 Duo E6650, E6750, E6800, and E6850
|
|
 Feb 10 2007, 08:15 AM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
 
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru  
|
|
Quote|
|
|
|
|
Feb 10 2007, 08:35 AM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
QUOTE(almostthere @ Feb 10 2007, 08:28 AM) Learn to read friend. those with 50 markings will have FSB 1333Mhz. Not increased cache I know dude. But for d E6320 n E6420 their L2 increase from 2MB to 4MB. Then why intel not increase d L2 cache for d rest with 50 marking? This post has been edited by jcliew: Feb 10 2007, 08:36 AM |
|
|
Feb 10 2007, 08:47 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
QUOTE(jinaun @ Feb 10 2007, 08:44 AM) what else do u want.. intel does't want to increase the cache size.. beside that.. bigger cache are slower and more expensive to manufacture If can i want free processor from Intel  Is that true higher cache capacity will slower d processor? |
|
|
Feb 10 2007, 08:51 AM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
QUOTE(jinaun @ Feb 10 2007, 08:49 AM) hint... Not quiz now lah bro... y do u need 4mb L2 cache.. and not 4MB L1 cache???  actually i'm not expert in processor architecture... what the function of L1 n L2 n L3 as well??? |
|
|
Feb 10 2007, 09:08 AM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
QUOTE(vey99 @ Feb 10 2007, 08:54 AM) Hehehe that would be *quite* costly to produce at the moment.. But from what my friend tell me d L2 capacity dun affect us esp in gaming. It only show d difference where calculating Super Pi with slightly faster time count. But cache size is not that critical if you are regular user, even in c2d benchies mosts apps are on par whether 2mb or 4mb...  Added on February 10, 2007, 9:10 am QUOTE(jinaun @ Feb 10 2007, 08:53 AM) think of it as waterfall effect.. L1 overflows to L2 overflows to L3 overflows to RAM overflows to HDD Oh... like this ah? Is that u mean d highest capacity will be at the bottom?This post has been edited by jcliew: Feb 10 2007, 09:10 AM |
|
|
Feb 10 2007, 10:21 AM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
Oh i c. Then only d Duron family is exception in this case. Thx 4 ur knowledge dude!
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 10 2007, 10:59 AM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
QUOTE(Imaizumi @ Feb 10 2007, 10:53 AM) Since the FSB is 1333, that means you need a new mobo to support? I mean currently most mobo supports 1033Mhz right? Suppose 1066MHz dude... From what i know there r sum board juz need 2 update their BIOS then can support FSB1333 oledi. depends on what board lah but i'm not sure which board can be updated to support FSB1333. |
|
|
Feb 11 2007, 07:50 AM
Return to original view | Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
QUOTE(Goliath764 @ Feb 10 2007, 10:14 PM) Will the price cut again with the release of E6X50 series? I think there will be price cut as core 2 procs nowardays oledi becum mainstream liao.  Added on February 11, 2007, 7:56 am QUOTE(hotdog @ Feb 10 2007, 03:09 PM) He said all those processors will have 4MB L2Cache. That simply means there is no L2 increase for E6600 or other processors that already have 4MB L2 Cache. Since d older E6600 oledi hav 4MB L2, then i dun think d newer E6650 got any interesting point to tweak it. As u know d newer E6650 FSB is 1333MHz, with higher FSB compare 2 FSB1066MHz on E6600, d multiplier of E6650 will be lower rite? Since d E6600 n E6650 default frequency still @2.4GHz, i'm sure d older E6600 giv us more tweaking option when OCing d procs!  Furthermore d multiplier of C2D only can adjust lower n not higher. This post has been edited by jcliew: Feb 11 2007, 07:56 AM |
|
|
Feb 12 2007, 08:04 AM
Return to original view | Post
#9
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
QUOTE(phas3r @ Feb 11 2007, 05:37 PM) so what is the benefit of higher FSB? Higher bandwidth can be achieved where communications between CPU, RAM n NB is done via FSB in intel based system. |
|
|
Feb 12 2007, 08:19 AM
Return to original view | Post
#10
|
|
Senior Member
889 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: Johor Bahru
|
QUOTE(almostthere @ Feb 12 2007, 08:14 AM) IF providing the latencies due to straps and so forth are the same previously. That's the caveat Hey buddy! u use difficult language... dun get what u meant coz i'm not highly educated... |
| Change to: |  0.0169sec
 1.34
 6 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 21st December 2025 - 04:21 PM |
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025 IPS, Inc.