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.
Hell NO: Base MBP has 3 MB of L2 memory. They can keep it!
- Thread starter Full of Win
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wouldn't exactly call it a "slight difference." (25%) And the amount RAM you have matters only because when you run out of RAM you page to disk (even slower than RAM). But since the L2 cache is so much smaller than RAM, if you have a problem due to paging, increasing the l2 cache by 25% is unlikely to make any difference. The change in L2 cache size will matter most when your data and programs fit in main memory, but your working set of data is greater than 3MB and less than 4MB. If you are using photoshop, and your working set is already 5MB, the effect won't be too huge. If you are using office and excel, and your working set is 3.5MB, the comparative effect will be bigger.
I did a ton of graphs showing the effect on performance of varying L2 cache size in proportion to other memory sizes for my ph.d. dissertation a decade ago (so it's a bit out of date), but I'm happy to provide a link if anyone enjoys pretty graphs (created by "stanford graphics" back in the day. good times.)
Better pony up for the 6MB then. Or just not buy it at all. Maybe you should email Steve Jobs and tell him to completely change his hardware profile so he can fit your supposed 'needs'? Or better yet, maybe you can get a free macbook pro for your mental anguish?
Even better yet, vote with your dollar and don't buy Apple.
This isn't Apple being sneaky, the 2.4ghz Penyrn based core 2 duo chip from Intel has 3mb of L2 cache instead of 4 like the older model. Don't know why Intel cut the cache size by 1mb for that model, but they added 2mb in all of the chips 2.5ghz and higher.
If you're pissed at Apple for offering a 2.4 instead of a 2.5 in the low-end, then fine, but they aren't trying to trick people.
Right now I can still survive on my current MBP (see my signature), especially after I figured out that people can't really tell that my current MBP is an old model But multitouch is nice... and the price difference... grrr... ah well... I'll wait till 2009 for Nehalem MBPs. I do hope I haven't sparked any new waits. Next thing we know, people are saying that next tuesday intel is accelerating montevina launch so that MBPs on Montevina can launch on next tuesday
But multitouch is nice... and the price difference... grrr... ah well... I'll wait till 2009 for Nehalem MBPs. I do hope I haven't sparked any new waits. Next thing we know, people are saying that next tuesday intel is accelerating montevina launch so that MBPs on Montevina can launch on next tuesdayYeah...
Apple is a business which likes to make money. The models they offer are obviously the most cost effective for them on a large scale.
They're not first company to do this, nor will they be the last. Deal with it.
Apple is a business which likes to make money. The models they offer are obviously the most cost effective for them on a large scale.
They're not first company to do this, nor will they be the last. Deal with it.
They didn't "CUT" the cache. With the old Merom chips, it used to be 2MB for the low end processors, and 4MB in the higher end. Now, with the Penryns, it is 3MB/6MB. Nothing cut, but actually added.
So, really all you people complaining about getting shafted by 25% are actually getting a 50% bump UP on a low end processor. Get over it.
And this new penryn may not need as much L2 to run at the same speed.
Also, this base model has 256mb (GPU) vs 128mb on the old base model.
This seems consistent with historical Apple pricing. I think its great!
Also, this base model has 256mb (GPU) vs 128mb on the old base model.
This seems consistent with historical Apple pricing. I think its great!
Right now I can still survive on my current MBP (see my signature), especially after I figured out that people can't really tell that my current MBP is an old model
LOL "survive". I hope you can stand roughing it with those specs. Can it run photoshop and safari at the same time?
You should get the new MBP and give that piece of trash to me!
When I was designing microprocessors, we had a running joke called the "7%" rule. Anytime we'd ask the architects to make a compromise (what if we had 128 entries instead of 256 in the branch predictor? What if we took an extra cycle to do a 64x64 bit integer multiply? what if we reduced the cache size? etc.), they'd always go run their performance modeling for 3 or 4 days and come back and tell us 7%.
Reducing L2 cache by 50% will affect your performance by up to 7%. In some situations. Sometimes.
Really big jobs will see less of an effect (percentage-wise). Really small jobs will see no effect.
They can stick it as far as I care.
ironically, the previous generation had 4 mg cache CPUs.
so..technically my 2.2 ghz is prob faster than the new 2.4 with 1 mg less cache in CPU =)
cache is actually a big deal...
when centrino came out they had 2 mg of cache vs the previous 512kb. They were clocked at half the speed of P4, but benchmarked faster.
help!
is this true? i can only afford the base model or the refirbed 2.4 and i am only buying on performance (don't need the software update of trackpad).
should i buy the refirbed 2.4 mpb or the new 2.4 mpb based if i don't care about the new track pad thing
is this a true comparison performance wise?:
old refirb:
2.4 ghz
256 mb graphics
4mb l2
new mpb base model:
2.4 ghz
256 mb graphics
3mb l2
is the old one better???? help!!
is this true? i can only afford the base model or the refirbed 2.4 and i am only buying on performance (don't need the software update of trackpad).
should i buy the refirbed 2.4 mpb or the new 2.4 mpb based if i don't care about the new track pad thing
is this a true comparison performance wise?:
old refirb:
2.4 ghz
256 mb graphics
4mb l2
new mpb base model:
2.4 ghz
256 mb graphics
3mb l2
is the old one better???? help!!
Which is EXACTLY why the new Penryn chips have 50% more than their respective predecessor. What used to have 2MB, now has 3MB. And what used to have 4MB, now has 6MB.
Its not rocket science people. Just because it says "2.4GHz" doesn't mean its the same exact chip as before.
It will make 2-3% difference on average. Sometimes no difference, sometimes a huge difference. I wouldn't be too concerned. Systems architecture is a complicated thing; changing bus speeds, wait states, bus widths, etc. can have just as much of an effect as the size of the cache.
