Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 55599	2005-03-14 23:08:00	L2 cache and windows	apparition (3207)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
334071	2005-03-14 23:08:00	Okay I've done a search before posting this. In my machine I have a Celeron-4 CPU. A Celeron-4 CPU has some commonality with the pentuim-4 in that it uses exactly the same motherboard socket (when I have the $ I'll upgrade) and thus is requires and has it's own L2 cache. Yes a small one, I know. My problem is that windows will not see it and neither will any windows utility. This is even after manually entering it's value in the registry. I started to doubt it was there untill a text dump of my hardware in linux showed that linux was using it quite happily. Windows (tripple boot with 98 and XP) is where my games are and I'd like to use it or know if it's being used.	apparition (3207)
334072	2005-03-14 23:58:00	In my machine I have a Celeron-4 CPU. My problem is that windows will not see it and neither will any windows utility. This is even after manually entering it's value in the registry. I started to doubt it was there untill a text dump of my hardware in linux showed that linux was using it quite happily. Windows (tripple boot with 98 and XP) is where my games are and I'd like to use it or know if it's being used. What exactly do you mean? Windows doesn't see what? THe processor or the cache? Or do you mean its not identifying the CPU correctly? Intel has a bunch of support on that: www.intel.com If its not identifying the CPU properly, it may be your motherboard - try updating the BIOS.	pctek (84)
334073	2005-03-15 00:04:00	What are you checking with? XP will detect the correct settings for any CPU later than PII. support.microsoft.com	PaulD (232)
334074	2005-03-15 00:28:00	ah obviously I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Like the thread title, it is the L2 cache thet is not being identified even when I tell the registry that it's there. I'm trying that intel link but it doesn't look hopeful so far.	apparition (3207)
334075	2005-03-15 00:59:00	* Check the CMOS parameters or jumpers settings on the motherboard for the processor. * Ensure the selected motherboard is appropriate for the processor model, frequency, and stepping you are planning to use. * Update the system ROM BIOS to the newest version. * Run the Frequency ID Utility to verify the processor. More information on the Processor Frequency ID Utility. Since many programs detect the processor so that they can better utilize their features, the software may have been written before the processor existed. Therefore, check with the software manufacturer for a patch or update. Note: If an application cannot identify a processor, the software will not run with the processor or it will assume it is an older processor without many of the features that the processor offers resulting in slower performance. (Off the Intel link) I think the bit about software detecting features may apply to your problem. Update your BIOS, I don't think you should worry too much if certain utilities aren't seeing the cache.	pctek (84)
334076	2005-03-15 03:27:00	Thanks but BIOS update scares me as the only time I've done that was a bad and expencive experience.	apparition (3207)
334077	2005-03-15 03:36:00	B brave. It only takes a minute or so. And you won't break it if you don't do anything silly like turning off the power in the middle of it.	pctek (84)
334078	2005-03-15 04:02:00	I really don't think that updating the BIOS is a good idea . Obviously the cache works . So it's not being disabled by any deficiency in the BIOS . Does Windows have any control over the use of caches? My impression has been that a major feature of caching is that it's transparent to the OS and programmes . It's a hardware thing . The only time I have ever had occasion to look at this was a long time ago when some boards came out with very cheap cache chips . . . properly labelled 28 pin DIL packages, but with no silicon inside . There was a programme made available which would run a speed test, then disable the cache and run the speed test again . If you had the spurious cache chips, there was no difference . ;)	Graham L (2)
1