C2D 8xxx series much faster than 7xxx series?

RudeCurve

Banned
I'm considering upgrading my 2.5GHz C2D E7200 cpu to to something around 3GHz. Should I stay with the 7xxxx series with 3MB cache instead of paying more for the 8xxxx series with 6MB cache? I want to stay with a C2D for its low power consumption vs the C2Q. How much improvement in performance is gained by going with a 6MB cache instead of a 3MB one? Will it be more or less than 10%? I mainly use my PC for surfing the web and watching HD videos and DVDs. It's plenty fast as it is but I just want to upgrade the CPU when Windows 7 arrives.
 
How much improvement in performance is gained by going with a 6MB cache instead of a 3MB one?

So you want to spend money so that your cpu spends even more time doing nothing while surfing the web and watching HD videos and DVDs

Heres a little exercise for you
overclock your cpu to 3ghz then tell me how much better your experience was while surfing the web and watching HD videos and DVDs
 
No need to upgrade to E8xxx really, even if you were a gamer. Better get as silent as possible CPU cooler with good fan, say Thermalright HR-01+ and Scythe S-Flex F fan. And maybe couple those with Scythe Kaze Master fan controller for the ultimate control of silence/cooling. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see any driving need for you to upgrade; you'd probably be happy with an aging E6200 for the tasks you're talking about. Windows 7 has no need for that kind of CPU power either.

Save your money :)
 
I have a Pentium Dual core E6300, this chip although branded as a Pentium bit it's based on the 45nm Wolfdale core with the only exception being that it has 2mb L2 cache which is less then the E7*** series.

At low speeds the cache will make a difference but when you start going over 3.2Ghz the difference becomes smaller and smaller.

At 4Ghz+ the difference is to small to matter :)
 
I have a Pentium Dual core E6300, this chip although branded as a Pentium bit it's based on the 45nm Wolfdale core with the only exception being that it has 2mb L2 cache which is less then the E7*** series.

At low speeds the cache will make a difference but when you start going over 3.2Ghz the difference becomes smaller and smaller.

At 4Ghz+ the difference is to small to matter :)

OTOH one could make an argument for faster clocks requiring larger caches to feed data to the desired instructions.
 
Back
Top