How important Cache is?

[proaliahmadr]

I want to know
Please tell me

[creativename]

For CPU tasks cache is quite important.

[MrBucket101]

Without cash you couldn't buy those fancy computer parts, so it's very important

[Freaky_spider]

Without cash you couldn't buy those fancy computer parts, so it's very important

-.- really? CACHE, not cash, like memory cache,

 

its pretty important, its where the CPU saves important data (like RAM), but you dont need that much, modern day CPU's have more then enough cache

[Ringtail Jax]

In the CPU the cache is probably the fastest semi storage of the system and is more relatable to the ram due to the fact that what ever goes in there is only temporary. In terms of specs the cache is important but only to a degree. If the CPU is fast itself but the amount the cache on the CPU is low than the CPU is bottle necked. But if there is plenty of cache but the CPU is slow than there is another bottle neck, there has to be a equilibrium of both cache, cores, and clock speed involved.

[B1G_WH1T3]

-.- really? CACHE, not cash, like memory cache,

 

its pretty important, its where the CPU saves important data (like RAM), but you dont need that much, modern day CPU's have more then enough cache

 

Facepalm, really does it need to be spelled out for you... 

[i_build_nanosuits]

L3 cache is very important for gaming, the AMD CPU that only has L2 cache are taking a major performance hit in games, if that is your question and i guess it is!

This is the reason why the AM3+ FX-4300, FX-6300 and FX-83xx are much better gaming chips than all the FM2+ CPU/APU that won't have any L3 cache at all..the L3 cache is the fastest and it is where the games stores the line of codes to be processed to make gaming possible...not having L3 cache or not enough L3 cache means you then have to rely on slower L2 cache to store the threads (line of codes) to be processed by the CPU. hope it's clear enough...

[vm'N]

L3 cache is very important for gaming, the AMD CPU that only has L2 cache are taking a major performance hit in games, if that is your question and i guess it is!

This is the reason why the AM3+ FX-4300, FX-6300 and FX-83xx are much better gaming chips than all the FM2+ CPU/APU that won't have any L3 cache at all..the L3 cache is the fastest and it is where the games stores the line of codes to be processed to make gaming possible...not having L3 cache or not enough L3 cache means you then have to rely on slower L2 cache to store the threads (line of codes) to be processed by the CPU. hope it's clear enough...

Well you are wrong. L1 is the fastest and the smallest cache, L2 is the second fastest cache, and L3 is the slowest and the largest cache.

Piledriver L3 aren't much faster than pulling it directly from the memory, however it have a much lower latency.

[Faa]

L3 cache is shared between all cores, so with a 50 core you preferably want to have more cache than on a quadcore. L2 is usually never shared except with bulldozer/vishera and L1 ofc never. Any level of cache effects your single core performance thats why you see the 4960x sitting right behind the 4770k's ass.
 

 

Piledriver L3 aren't much faster than pulling it directly from the memory, however it have a much lower latency.

[Theo]

Without cash you couldn't buy those fancy computer parts, so it's very important

 

 

Facepalm, really does it need to be spelled out for you... 

Dat like farming tho

[Faceman]

Lol, Nanosuits thought L3 cache was the fastest!  Geez!  What a knowledgeable "game developer"

[i_build_nanosuits]

Lol, Nanosuits thought L3 cache was the fastest!  Geez!  What a knowledgeable "game developer"

says the guy recommanding core i3 over FX 8 cores to everybody on the forum!

[Shakaza]

says the guy recommanding core i3 over FX 8 cores to everybody on the forum!

Regardless, his point still stands. L1 cache is the fastest out of all the on-die CPU caches.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Regardless, his point still stands. L1 cache is the fastest out of all the on-die CPU caches.

yes everybody can be wrong at least once in their life isnt it? my point still stand also check benchmarks CPU,s with L3 cache in the AMD line up does perform better than the others that don't have it in games....

[brob]

I want to know

Please tell me

 

Cache is used in many situations where data (of one sort or another) must be moved between components with vastly different access speeds. The purpose of using a cache is to reduce the natural bottleneck that occurs in these situations. The basic principal is that by moving larger than requested blocks of data from the slow device to a faster device subsequent serial requests can be satisfied from that moved block. Eliminating the need to go back to the slower device for the data. In sophisticated cache, movement of data can become asynchronous with a cache controller anticipating future data requests and moving blocks of data even before a request is made. One may even have multiple levels of caching in which larger blocks of data are moved to an intermediate faster store and from there moved to a smaller, but much faster (and expensive) store.

 

Without cache of some sort a fast device would be throttled having to wait for data from the slower device.

[LukaP]

STOP THE AMD INTEL DEBATE EVERYWHERE NANOSUITS FFS....

 

 

anyhow, cache is important, but for gaming use, 8MB is enough(L3), when you come to more tasking memory usage loads, the more the better. this includes rendering, encoding/decoding, compiling, etc. where the cpu needs the data to calculate to be always on acess (code, textures, meshes, lights) and having to store it in RAM and asking for it every cycle is really inefficient, while cache is (almost) instantenious.

 

edit: lol @brob you ninjad me, and put it in more technical terms. @OP in essence, brobs and my post explain why you need cache, and how much of it you want

[i_build_nanosuits]

STOP THE AMD INTEL DEBATE EVERYWHERE NANOSUITS FFS....

I'M not it is because i know this particular user who is asking this question and made this thread is looking at FX CPU's and X4 CPU's and this is why i mentionned AMD CPU's...relax man!

BTW you're gorgeous, love those red hairs you have

[LukaP]

I'M not it is because i know this particular user who is asking this question and made this thread is looking at FX CPU's and X4 CPU's and this is why i mentionned AMD CPU's...relax man!

BTW you're gorgeous, love those red hairs you have

thank you...

 

its just that whenever there is a CPU debate, and it doesnt matter what kind, if i see you in it, i can expect some sort of a fight between you and other people, you recocmending FX over all intel all the time...

[i_build_nanosuits]

thank you...

 

its just that whenever there is a CPU debate, and it doesnt matter what kind, if i see you in it, i can expect some sort of a fight between you and other people, you recocmending FX over all intel all the time...

absolutely not, if you check my posts you will realise that a core i5 is what i recommand a lot to user that have the budget to get one, mostly if they play some MMO's and old-tech indi games....but where i recommand AMD a lot is in BUDGET build, people who want's to play modern game without sacrifising performance going with an i5 and a lower end GPU...that's it. Check my posts.

[chicksoup]

it depends on what cache. CPU cache is really important, but then on the android side especially a lot of apps use too much cache and consume too much space. With certain apps or from the apps panel you can delete the cache. The cache in this case could be a preloaded image or images on 9gag or facebook feeds

[LukaP]

absolutely not, if you check my post you will realise that a core i5 is what i recommand a lot to user that have the budget to get one, mostly if they play some MMO's and old-tech indi games....but where i recommand AMD a lot is in BUDGET build, people who want's to play modern game without sacrifising performance going with an i5 and a lower end GPU...that's it. Check my post.

well im just stating what i saw. and for that reason alone, i tend to avoid CPU and new builds sections mostly. i really cant stand flame wars...

[i_build_nanosuits]

well im just stating what i saw. and for that reason alone, i tend to avoid CPU and new builds sections mostly. i really cant stand flame wars...

i totaly understand that, i like to help so everything that says ''budget build for modern games'' or anything similar i WILL recommand FX-6300 and FX-83xx over core i5 because they play modern games very well and cost only a fraction of the price...the user can then take the money saved and get a 1080p display and go with say a radeon r9 280X instead or a r9 270X...that is my point of view. NOW, sure if the user mention playing a lot of EsO or planetside 2 or any other single-threaded games being a priority for i'm a lower end i5 (4430, 4440) can be a very good choice. I do try to avoid flame wars but i have this user Faceman on my back since day 1 and he won't let go! now please quote this so he read it cause he set me on ignore : FACEMAN i have nothing against you please stop that war i can't stand it anymore you can ''un-ignore'' me i won't bother you anymore but please just stop!! thanks.

[Faceman]

     Nanosuits, who did I recommend an i3 to over an FX8?  Search all of my posts and find it.  The only times I recommend an i3 over an FX is when the person is wanting to play games that run better on Intel and have a limited budget.  I have said before in the past, and you can find it in my logs that if I had to choose between an i3 and FX8, I would personally take the FX8.  That doesn't change the fact that in some games, the i3 is better than the FX8.  You need to stop telling people that an FX8xxx is better than a 4th Generation Intel i5-4670k, it is not, and probably never will be, is it less expensive, and will it perform similar in most but not all games? yes, but it is not better.  The latest example being Watch Dogs.  The i5-4670k, not the 3rd Generation i5, still outperforms the FX8xxx.  You are so full of it.  Making a fool of yourself, claiming that you are a game designer. and overall giving people bad advice.  Reporting people and harassing us via messanger when we disagree with your bogus claims.

 

Do not post benchmarks of 3gen Intels like you do in the past, it is not relevant.

 

Directly from Tom's Hardware:

 

"When it comes to gaming, we rarely see the FX-8350 outperform a Core i3. But AMD's flagship walks away with a clear win in that match-up. Based on what we're seeing, serious fans of the game will want an FX-6000-series chip at least, but an FX-8000 or Core i5 should be much better."  - source

 

For some games, an i3 is better than an FX8xxx  The

. I use these sources because when an FX8 is being bested by an i3, it gives even more strength to the i5 over the FX8.  Both processors have their merits, the FX being less expensive, and the Intel being the better all-around performer, and superior chip. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

3rd gen intel is irrelevant? then why does tom's hardware keeps using them to benchmark new games? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watch-dogs-pc-performance,3833-8.html

just add 6% this is how better the haswell is...6%, nothing more, nothing less. And also the FX chips are now 3 years old and cost MUCH MUCH less than a core i5 so they should not even be compared with even sandy bridge CPU's they should be compared with nehalem but still they outperform ivy in MANY games!

have you set me to not ignore so we can talk now? or please can somebody quote my previous post so he can read it, this is getting ridiculous

[Gorgonzolor]

i3 doesn't won't work with new game because it's only duel core - that is old technologay. all games released from tomorrow on will require 4 core minimum i have insider info from the industriy so i know this to be true.