| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 25136 | 2002-09-26 22:39:00 | CPU L2 Cache | Mike (15) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 83597 | 2002-09-26 22:39:00 | Read in tweak'es news post about adding a setting to XP to make use of the Level 2 cache from my CPU. Well I'm just wondering where do I look to see if my CPU has a L2 cache, and how much is it? My old CPU had (I think) 128k L2 cache, but I have no idea about this one. :D Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 83598 | 2002-09-26 22:57:00 | I too am wondering about this. Perhaps a visit to the manufacturers website?? G P |
Graham Petrie (449) | ||
| 83599 | 2002-09-26 22:59:00 | Yeah, I'm searching through AMD.com at the moment :) Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 83600 | 2002-09-26 23:06:00 | Graham, If you've got an AMD CPU, then AMD's "amdcpuid.exe" (you can download it from amd.com) will identify it - it's the last thing on the list once you've run the program. Else WCPUID (I think it's called "What CPU ID") can be downloaded through www.download.com, and that'll tell you (it's a lot clearer and easier to read than the AMD one as well) :) There... mine has 256k L2 Cache :) <goes to edit registry> Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 83601 | 2002-09-26 23:11:00 | You may visit this Intel site to find out your CPU details: Intel Processors (www.intel.com) Good luck bk |
bk T (215) | ||
| 83602 | 2002-09-26 23:16:00 | So now I've added my L2 cache setting into the registry, what kind of performance boost am I supposed to be getting? Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 83603 | 2002-09-26 23:25:00 | Not too sure but try running a few applications that normally hog resources to see if you notice any difference. | Sam H (525) | ||
| 83604 | 2002-09-27 00:01:00 | I just downloaded cpuinfo from the amd websitev-it also gives values for L1 and L2 cache. G P |
Graham Petrie (449) | ||
| 83605 | 2002-09-27 02:41:00 | Has anyone got a link to the Knowledge base article? I am bit skeptical if the patch really does enable the L2 cache because the L2 cache is managed by the CPU and it transparent to the OS. Also if it was disabled then any benchmarks that were run would show a quite significant performance drop compared to win 9x. Not to mention pissing off anyone who had paid for a Xeon processor. My guess is it actually enables performance optimisations based on the size of the cache instead. I haven't got 2k/XP so I would be quite interested if anyone does get a measurable performance increase. |
bmason (508) | ||
| 83606 | 2002-09-27 03:29:00 | > I haven't got 2k/XP so I would be quite interested if > anyone does get a measurable performance increase. not a thing :) Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||