AMD XP L2 512 vs 1024

[giovio]

Dear all,
I have tested the same processor AMD XP 3500 with two different L2 cache sizes (512 and 1024 KB) and I was unable to notice differences/improvements over common DAW functions. In spite of the general suggestion that a bigger cache is better.
I must say that I am working with windowsXP still at 32 bits as my audio hardware doesn't have a 64 bit driver.
Any comment?

Regards

[AndyH]

I suspect that the actual benefits decrease significantly beyond some critical minimum, just as they do with so many other things. I once had a 486 equivalent Cryix CPU. It had a 1K cache that only worked if an activating driver was run as part of the OS boot-up process. That 1K made quite a performance difference.

[itsplayed]

A lot will depend specifically on the task at hand. Without the cache memory every time the CPU requested data it would send a request to the main memory which would then be sent back across the memory bus to the CPU. This is a slow process in computing terms. The idea of the cache is that this extremely fast memory would store data that is frequently accessed and also if possible the data that is around it. This is to achieve the quickest possible response time to the CPU. Its based on playing the percentages. If a certain piece of data has been requested 5 times before, its likely that this specific piece of data will be required again and so is stored in the cache memory.The level 1 cache is the fastest and smallest memory, level 2 cache is larger and slightly slower but still smaller and faster than the main memory.
Is more cash alway's better? The answer is mostly yes but certainly not always. The main problem with having too much cache memory is that the CPU will always check the cache memory before the main system memory.
As the fact that non cache systems only work in certain circumstances and so in certain applications CPU's are definitely better with a decent amount of cache. Applications such as MPEG encoders are not good cache users because they have a constant stream of completely different data.

[charliephogg]

so...

how important would the 1MB L2 Cache be important for the DAW running Cubase or Ableton?

Would one be better off in the DAW with an AMD 4600+X2 Dual 2.4 512 L2 Cache - or with a X2 4400+ dual 2.2ghz 1MB L2 Cache

[itsplayed]

Personally, I'd go with the CPU with the larger cache size. Although, I don't have any data to support any finding that shows one is better than the other between the two CPU's you have listed. Pentium M processors have proven their worth in DAWs when comparing it to the P4. The biggest difference between those two is clearly the larger cache found on the PM. IMHO go for the X2 4400+ dual 2.2ghz 1MB L2 Cache. This is especially true if you plan on using lots of VST/VSTi's in your projects.

[ab420]

The more cache the merrier, Intel is already working on some crazy stuff. They estimate is 2008 they will release chips with up to 8 eight cores and 32 mb of cache!