does L2 Cache make a big diffrence?

[sheptr]

im looking at a 4600+ 1mb cashe, a 4000+ 1mb cashe with 2mb cashe, and a Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 with 2mb cashe, which of all these CPUs will perform the best in gaming situations..

thanks

[pwoznic]

from what i understand, more l2 cache allows for better multi-tasking, but im not certain.

right now im on my new server, 3000 sempron am2 with 256 l2 cache and it runs things fine. my other pc has a intel p4 3.6 w/ HT (old chip) and it runs any new game perfectly with no problems.

i'd say if you're worry about gaming, worry about the graphics card.

my buddy has a 4600 and two 7900whateverthebestnvidiacardsare in SLI

[sheptr]

sli is expansive.. i cant desided if i should get a 1900xt for 350 and the better card, or get a 7900 for future SLI benifits.. i guess im going to need a new videocard someday, so instead of a totally new one i can just get another 7900 and do SLI

[saphalline]

You're comparing apples to oranges here. A new Core 2 with 2MB cache is going to benefit differently than an A64 X2 with 1MB cache per core. The two CPU's are designed differently, so you can't compare them directly. You can only compare cache sizes within the same family of CPU's.

For instance, it's a safe bet that a Core 2 with 4MB of cache will outperform a Core 2 with 2MB of cache. That's not to say the 2MB versions are inadequate, just that they don't perform as well.