more cache or faster FSB??

[adcx64]

HI, i am currently building an older P4 computer just for web browsing and i have two processors... whitch one should i choose? one has more cache and the other has a faster FSB my motherboard supports both fully......
Proc 1: P4 2.8ghz 1mb cache , 533 FSB
Proc 2: P4 2.8 ghz , 512 cache , 800 fsb

 

[FreedomEclipse]

For web browsing?? it doesnt matter - but IMO more cache is always nice. helps shit load up just a lil bit faster.

 

[Mussels]

HI, i am currently building an older P4 computer just for web browsing and i have two processors... whitch one should i choose? one has more cache and the other has a faster FSB my motherboard supports both fully......
Proc 1: P4 2.8ghz 1mb cache , 533 FSB
Proc 2: P4 2.8 ghz , 512 cache , 800 fsb

if we were talking the same architecture, then cache would be the easy guess. However those CPU's are likely very very different internally... please give us the model numbers.

At a guess, the 800Mhz FSB chip will be far newer, and likely superior.


What are you trying to achieve anyway? A pentium 4 is weak by todays standards, and cant do much beyond running windows and older games.

 

[adcx64]

Here are the sspec numbers:
Proc 1: P4 2.8ghz 1mb cache , 533 FSB SSPEC- SL7PK
Proc 2: P4 2.8 ghz , 512 cache , 800 fsb SSPEC- SL6WJ

Also, I will use this computer watching movies and some video editiing ( nothing major), and the mobo is an ABIT IC7

 

[Mussels]

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6WJ

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL7PK



the 1MB cache model (lower FSB) is actually the newer chip, its 90nm vs the other chips 130nm.

so the lower FSB model is likely to run cooler.

 

[adcx64]

So in all there will really be no performance difference?

 

[adcx64]

i see that there are no notes on intel's site saying that the 90nm model has hyperthreading but the older one does.... so does the 90nm support hyperthrading?

 

[Mussels]

no, it seems that the 130nm one has HT, and the 90nm doesnt.

Odd that.

seems like there is no clear choice here. They're both enough for non HD content, and neither will be enough for 1080p playback. they're both gunna be slow for video encoding/editing as well.


You cant lose with either one so long as it works, you either get a cooler chip, or hyperthreading.

 

[3volvedcombat]

In this case and most l2cache is way better then the actual FSB.

Id take 2 same clocked chips
and the one with the most l2 cache ill take, because it offers way more performance. l2 cache basically decides performance in most cases and will always do so.

*What cache is in a processor is HYPER FAST memory for the processor to save and remember functions for programs while its running or when you start it.
*Cache prevents the CPU from having to use the system bus for transferring data, once the system bus has to transfer data for the CPU, the CPU is essentially capped by how fast the motherboard is. But the Onboard cache is HYPER FAST compared to the system bus in transferring data between each-other, so having the extra cache on the processor makes it were its way faster then processors with low cache by a CLOCK BY CLOCK standing comparison.


Here is a example.

E5200-2.5GHZ- 2MB of cache 100% of performance. -wolfdale

E8400- "down clocked" 2.5Ghz - 6mb of cache is 130-150% faster at the same clock speed. -wolfdale

there is the potential difference. Cache differences REALLY SHOW in rendering programs to, if that bothers your choice.


****FSB**** Fsb only really matters if your trying to get wider bandwidth with memory, or high clocks with memory itself. Its good to have high FSB processors on lga 775 setups if your going to use ddr3 with the setups because its just better performing, but cache is eventually be the deciding factor because it offers more difference then FSB.

 

[Mussels]

In this case and most l2cache is way better then the actual FSB.

Id take 2 same clocked chips
and the one with the most l2 cache ill take, because it offers way more performance. l2 cache basically decides performance in most cases and will always do so.

*What cache is in a processor is HYPER FAST memory for the processor to save and remember functions for programs while its running or when you start it.
*Cache prevents the CPU from having to use the system bus for transferring data, once the system bus has to transfer data for the CPU, the CPU is essentially capped by how fast the motherboard is. But the Onboard cache is HYPER FAST compared to the system bus in transferring data between each-other, so having the extra cache on the processor makes it were its way faster then processors with low cache by a CLOCK BY CLOCK standing comparison.


Here is a example.

E5200-2.5GHZ- 2MB of cache 100% of performance. -wolfdale

E8400- "down clocked" 2.5Ghz - 6mb of cache is 130-150% faster at the same clock speed. -wolfdale

there is the potential difference. Cache differences REALLY SHOW in rendering programs to, if that bothers your choice.


****FSB**** Fsb only really matters if your trying to get wider bandwidth with memory, or high clocks with memory itself. Its good to have high FSB processors on lga 775 setups if your going to use ddr3 with the setups because its just better performing, but cache is eventually be the deciding factor because it offers more difference then FSB.

an i7 with 2MB of cache is going to whup a pentium 4 with 4MB of cache.

cache only matters directly if they're the same architecture

since ones 130nm and ones 90nm, and one has hyperthreading while the other doesnt... its fair to say that they're different on the inside, in more than just amount of cache.

 

[hat]

I would take the 533FSB one with 1MB cache, then overclock it to 800MHz FSB

Err, that's 4.2GHz, probably not possible

 

[Mussels]

I would take the 533FSB one with 1MB cache, then overclock it to 800MHz FSB

Err, that's 4.2GHz, probably not possible

actually, it is. my ex-housemates P4 ran at a nice 4.4Ghz. It was just slow, even at those clocks.

 

[Kreij]

Since you are just going to use it for browsing, I would go with more cache, slower FSB, no HT.

 

[hat]

actually, it is. my ex-housemates P4 ran at a nice 4.4Ghz. It was just slow, even at those clocks.

Not as slow at 2.8GHz

 

[adcx64]

would the one with hypertreading make any speen difference? would it make win7 perform any better?

 

[hat]

It would help in applications that make use of more than one thread, yes.

 

[adcx64]

Thanks for all of the responces!
So witch one would you guys choose. I will just surf the web and watch videos on youtube and maybe emulate some old games. I already have my maxed-out laptop for anything that is power hungry!
Also the os would be win7

 

[mosheen]

try each one and decide.

 

[hat]

Take the 533MHz FSB one and overclock it.

 

[Easy Rhino]

What are you trying to achieve anyway? A pentium 4 is weak by todays standards, and cant do much beyond running windows and older games.

HI, i am currently building an older P4 computer just for web browsing

as you can see he wont be using it for much.

 

[3volvedcombat]

an i7 with 2MB of cache is going to whup a pentium 4 with 4MB of cache.

cache only matters directly if they're the same architecture

since ones 130nm and ones 90nm, and one has hyperthreading while the other doesnt... its fair to say that they're different on the inside, in more than just amount of cache.

Yes and architecture goes passed cache with processors to, i know this, but he wanted to know l2 cache vs fsb differences comparing Pentium processors.

Architecture can go into account on there different levels of cache and how many cores a processor has to use. What instruction the processor has to use, and the use of memory controllers and nm between transistors meaning the 90nm Pentium will run cooler and probable overclock higherlaugh. HT is even more with handedly performance gaining then cache is to a processor. So if a pent has ht but 512kb of l2 cache it is potentially faster then the 1mb l2 cache single core Pentium. But It depends on the programs in this situation. If rendering I believe the HT Pentium will be better, but at gaming and video I belive the 1mb Pentium will be better in that case. It Depends though.

But Most games are using 2 cores, and video's and flash programs are using 2 cores to, its a dual core world so i believe the Pentium with the HT will be perfect right now for stuff like that.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Ive had both of those processors and the 800mhz fsb chip blows that other chip away big time...
I still have that 800mhz chip actually..just no mobo for it

 

[adcx64]

Thanks for all of the responces... i decided to use the 1MB cache processor and everything works great... here are the final specs:
Pentium 4 @ 2.8ghz
1.5GB Ram
(2) 80gb harddrives
abit ic7 mobo
win 7 ultimate
Nvidia GeForce FX5200 128mb
All of this were some spair parts i had laying around^^^

 

[cdawall]

the 130nm one is a northy chip and should clock higher even with the larger die size the prescott based 90nm chip may throw a suprize out there but i would stick to the 533 based northwood and clock it up a little bit