Uncreative Labs

Joined: 10 May 2008 Posts: 62

I have a relatively new low end laptop computer. It is equipped with a Pentium D T2080 (Core Duo) Yonah-1M cpu. It has 32KB L1 Cache per core and it also has a total L2 cache of 1MB (ATC, Full Speed, on Die) in which both cores share.

The computer has 2GB of DDR2-533 SDRAM. My question is this. Given the amount of L1 and L2 cache on the processor is the processor capable of caching a full 2GB of RAM? The laptop originally shipped with 1GB, in which I just recently upgraded to 2GB for better performance in Vi$ta. I see subtle improvement in the execution of apps, startup, and shutdown. However when I pull up the task manager, I see that out of the 2gb only 1471 MB is cached. I'm wondering if I run a memory intensive application will I actually see a performance gain or will the program be slow because of cache misses as the program takes up residence in a higher location of ram?

Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 488 Location: pennsylvanai

I don't think so
its at least a higher end laptop.
and don't try splitting hairs.
if the HOURGLASS stays on for more than a short bling., something is set wrong.
besided it " is what it is" and don't worry about things you cannot change without big barrels full
of " pictures of dead presidents".
I consider myself lucky with my P3-500

Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 261 Location: WisConSin

Ram that isn't being used at the moment isn't cached by the on cpu cache.

And as far as I know nobody plays the up to X is cached game anymore, its all or nothing.

Joined: 10 May 2008 Posts: 62

wdegroot:

So far the machine is behaving fine when I open multiple apps. When I open apps the "spinning donut" (which replaces the hourglass in Vista) stays on for a short bling. I think Ryan maybe correct, it's all or nothing.

From what research I have done most CPUs, have only cache misses 10% of the time. Also more cache is better than more RAM. Nonetheless, the ram upgrade was cheap at only $32 USD (total including shipping from New Egg).

I don't care to replace the processor its just fine. I've spent all that I'm going to spend on the notebook pc as it was a low end ultra portable that only cost me $600 new from tiger.

The real bottle neck, afaik, and this is given on most laptops, that is the video. But as that is soldered on to the mobo there is really no way to elegantly upgrade it.

Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 488 Location: pennsylvanai

i really cannot comment on newer hardware as I am stuck in the last century.
but when amd had the K3 with an extra level of cache , it was ignored by motherboards that did not have built-in support
and others needed proper settings in the Bios/Cmos.

this could be the case here. Sometimes the " plain vanilla" setup. iof it be bios defaults or setup defailds
needs to be changed so the computer workes better and faster.
sometimes the settings are hard to figure out.in spite of what what Microsoft says, newer OS are FATTER and are bound to be slower.