Hey All,

I have to computers both using the p54c 133MHz pentium processer, The one with the Microstar motherboard has a 1MB L2 cache, and my other system which is a Packard Bell (no complaints, it's been real good to me) with the PB680 Orlando motherboard has no onboard L2 cache at all.

My question is why would a manufacturer not put in L2 cache support, and how essential is it?

Lee V

------------------
Experience is a hard teacher. She gives the test first and the lesson afterward. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif

[This message has been edited by LeeV (edited 01-05-2001).]

Packard Bell was cutting corners, but unfortunately at the expense of performance. Some PB's do not even allow a cache upgrade.

You can get a feel for what the performance loss is, by going into the BIOS of the computer with an L2 cache and disable the external cache. When you boot up, it should be very noticeable.

------------------
reido@my-deja.com

Thanks Reid,

Now why didn't I think of that? I didn't notice the difference right away, all my machines are slow booting, but it soon became obvious when I tried to veiw the 6MB word document that is the Microstar manual!

I knew that no L2 wasn't a good thing, but I had never been able to compare the two machines untill recently. I was thinking of throwing a 200MHz cpu in the PB, but with its built in limitations, I think I'll let it live out its life as my old reliable. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Thanks Lee

------------------
Experience is a hard teacher. She gives the test first and the lesson afterward.

[This message has been edited by LeeV (edited 01-06-2001).]