Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.3 Quad. 8MB L3 cache. Does it mean anything.
- Thread starter iDemiurge
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It means you're the best.
You're talkin to a guy who has a 17" MBP 2.3 flying in straight outta Shanghai China as we speak!!!
You're talkin to a guy who has a 17" MBP 2.3 flying in straight outta Shanghai China as we speak!!!
Depends on what you do, if you just browse the web,then no difference.
If you need to do video encoding / rendering or other cpu intensive tasks it'll save some time.
If you need to do video encoding / rendering or other cpu intensive tasks it'll save some time.
How much time? 2.2 to 2.3 is a bit less than 5% faster. What difference does the extra 2Mb L3 cache alone make?
L3 cache is used for pure CPU operations/instructions, it's just yet another cache before having to launch out in 'slow' (ha-ha) memory.
You've still got Level 1 and 2 caches to hand.. but Level 3 is just giving you more instruction space to feed the 2.3 processor which will feed on them.
You've still got Level 1 and 2 caches to hand.. but Level 3 is just giving you more instruction space to feed the 2.3 processor which will feed on them.
If you need to ask you don't do the kind of stuff where the difference will be noticeable outside benchmarking things. Anyone whos day to day work will show a significant change with the added cache and minimal change in processor speed will most likely not be relying on a laptop to do that kind of work. The benefits are mainly going to be for people doing non procedural parallel number crunching.
I'm looking into a machine for video editing, so there will be some video encoding / rendering involved.
I know I'll be able to use the computer to its maximum performance. What I don't know is if the performance gain in this case is only marginal and not really worth the extra $$$. If it means only 2-3% faster renderings it might not be worth it. But something like 8-10% improvement would be something to consider.
I know I'll be able to use the computer to its maximum performance. What I don't know is if the performance gain in this case is only marginal and not really worth the extra $$$. If it means only 2-3% faster renderings it might not be worth it. But something like 8-10% improvement would be something to consider.
It should be 3-4% faster in rendering, maybe just a tiny bit more. I couldn't see that really being worth $250
Erm, not quite. CPU cache consists of both instruction cache, and data cache. It is split between the two. It is not used purely for instructions as you claim.
To the OP: CPU cache will not give you a huge boost in CPU intensive programs. Those who've claimed that are confused and don't know what they're talking about. Large CPU cache gives you a performance boost when you're doing heavy multitasking, with lots of different programs running all at once. It does not give you any appreciable boost when running just a single CPU intensive program.
Rendering is a pretty linear process and assuming that it scales linearly with the overhead being maintained constant by the IO parts. Then the speed up should theoretically be (2.3-2.2)/2.2 ~= 0,045 but in reality it's going to be different depending on a multi core rendering approach and how efficient the streamlining of such a process is. Then you also have to account for the differences in how Turbo Boost works for the two processors. I think since the blocks in question are already so large that the cache is going to have minimal effect so I'd shoot for a intuitive guess of a 3-5% speed up for rendering. Everything else related to the video editing should be the same on a human measurable scale.
get the 2.2 quad and spend the 250 towards a SSD. it will result in much faster speed in day 2 day tasks as opposed to .1ghz raise in clock speed.
See this is why I love the age of message boards: healthy counter-criticism that leads to truth which benefits us all.
Most benchmarks are optimized to the point that the cache is less necessary. But run a benchmark while transcoding or running an active VM and I'd presume you see more of a difference.
In the past, Ive had applications that ran drastically faster on Xeon than consumer core, the cache size being the major difference.
-C
Even if it saves you a second here and a second there, these seconds add up fast. The difference between the 2.2 or the 2.3 is the difference between spending your life in front of a computer screen waiting for something to happen, or being out there, living life.
I got the extra 0.1 GHz for a premium, because money is not really a big issue to me. The 8MB L3 cache was a selling factor for me, as cache is part of the bottle-neck in CPUs. To me, the premium may save me an earlier upgrade - as the CPU is something you cannot upgrade in your lap-top.
But to be honest, it is just as much about not having to wonder if my computer is slow because I cheaped out on the last spec.
Having said that, I think you would spend your money a lot wiser buying the 2.2 GHz and a SSD, as the SSD is really where you get your moneys worth.
When I was on a smaller budget, I always went for the biggest bang for the buck. The 2.3 is not it. It is just the biggest bang. You will have to ask yourself: Do I need the extra 5% power for massive extra cost?
If money is the issue, I would conclude that 'no - it's not worth it'.
But to be honest, it is just as much about not having to wonder if my computer is slow because I cheaped out on the last spec.
Having said that, I think you would spend your money a lot wiser buying the 2.2 GHz and a SSD, as the SSD is really where you get your moneys worth.
When I was on a smaller budget, I always went for the biggest bang for the buck. The 2.3 is not it. It is just the biggest bang. You will have to ask yourself: Do I need the extra 5% power for massive extra cost?
If money is the issue, I would conclude that 'no - it's not worth it'.
Can someone actually do that, Geekbench with a VM or while transcoding on the 2.3ghz to see if it makes a larger difference?
