> Hi all,
>
> I have already made the purchase a month ago and now I
> realized that I didn't pay attention or gave enough importance
> to the amount of L2 cache memory included in my Dual Xeon
> system. I just wanted to have as much Ghz as possible ...
>
> The question is, is it better/faster:
>
> - Dual Xeon 3.0Ghz L2 2MB
>
> or
>
> - Dual Xeon 3.2Ghz L2 1MB

"Alex" <alnonymou***@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:422BC01F.4050607@yahoo.ca...
> Giovanni Azua wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have already made the purchase a month ago and now I
>> realized that I didn't pay attention or gave enough importance
>> to the amount of L2 cache memory included in my Dual Xeon
>> system. I just wanted to have as much Ghz as possible ...
>>
>> The question is, is it better/faster:
>>
>> - Dual Xeon 3.0Ghz L2 2MB
>>
>> or
>>
>> - Dual Xeon 3.2Ghz L2 1MB
>
> I don't have any hard evidence for you at the moment, but my money would
> be on the 3 Ghz model with 2 MB of L2 cache. Last time I read an article
> on CPU architecture, L2 cache seemed to play a more important role for
> Intel CPUs than AMD (probably due to the location of the memory
> controller). A Xeon with more L2 cache would be better at hiding the
> latency associated with memory access; this would probably be more
> noticeable than an extra 200 MHz of clock speed. However, I'm not entirely
> sure about this. And the increase in performance, which ever way it leans,
> probably wouldn't amount to very much. Either of those Xeons should purr
> along quite nicely.
>
> Alex