L3 Cache?

[dwdrummer959]

Hello all,
Does anyone know why the new dual 1.25 PM's only have 1mb of L3 cache instead of 2mb, which the previous version had. What sort of affects will the reduction in cache have, if any?
Thanks
-Scott

[Mr. Anderson]

Seems curious, doesn't it? Only the top of the line machines come with extra level 3 cache. So with the upgrade to Dual 1.4s, the 1.25 is only mid range.

But it brings up the whole issue of why did they go back to a single processor on the low end PowerMac? Which to me is even stranger.

I'm speculating that they're trying to show that 1 CPU is a viable configuration, so that when the new IBM 970s come out, using only one chip, the masses won't get too confused. First the MHz myth, next the multi processor myth - when is 1 better than 2....

D

[TyleRomeo]

Originally posted by dwdrummer959
Hello all,
Does anyone know why the new dual 1.25 PM's only have 1mb of L3 cache instead of 2mb, which the previous version had. What sort of affects will the reduction in cache have, if any?
Thanks
-Scott

Why did they do that with the dual 1GHZ DDR macs, umm becuase obviously the extra 1MB makes a difference. And its an advertising scheme to make you buy the top of the line.

Think about it, the Quicksilver Dual 1GHZ was just as fast and even sometimes faster then the 1GHZ Dual DDR 167MHZ bus Power Mac. The only difference in the Quicksilver had a 2MB L3 so yeah its important.

Tyler

[MrMacMan]

My theory for the 1, 1 GHZ chip PowerMac is that Motorola sucks and they can't even make enought to supply the (very) small demand.

Which brings me to an alternate point. If they are making the same amount of 1 GHZ chips then maybe they are overclocking some of them.

Speculation is my name.