How important Cache is?

[Shakaza]

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....

Oh, so pointing out a small, misleading error is illegal now? I wasn't trying to offend you, though I have a hunch @Faceman was, but I was only giving you a little poke, if you will.

But, yes, L3 cache is still important despite its somewhat slower speed than the other main caches. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong regarding its importance. Sorry if you took it that way.

As well, in certain, very specific situations, an i3 should be recommended over an FX-83XX, but those cases are few are far between. As you have said, games are moving away from relying on a small number of cores to using a larger number, so going AMD is making more and more sense. I don't agree with @Faceman if he recommends i3s willy-nilly without considering the kind of games the person asking is playing, as you say he does. I did read the post in which you two argued about whether a person should get an FX-8320 or an i3-4130. What was it, two pages?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Oh, so pointing out a small, misleading error is illegal now? I wasn't trying to offend you, though I have a hunch @Faceman was, but I was only giving you a little poke, if you will.

But, yes, L3 cache is still important despite its somewhat slower speed than the other main caches. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong regarding its importance. Sorry if you took it that way.

As well, in certain, very specific situations, an i3 should be recommended over an FX-83XX, but those cases are few are far between. As you have said, games are moving away from relying on a small number of cores to using a larger number, so going AMD is making more and more sense. I don't agree with @Faceman if he recommends i3s willy-nelly without considering the kind of games the person asking is playing, as you say he does. I did read the post in which you two argued about whether a person should get an FX-8320 or an i3-4130. What was it, two pages?

no worry man, i didnt took it the wrong way neither did i wanted to sound mean or anything...

[Faceman]

Oh, so pointing out a small, misleading error is illegal now? I wasn't trying to offend you, though I have a hunch @Faceman was, but I was only giving you a little poke, if you will.

But, yes, L3 cache is still important despite its somewhat slower speed than the other main caches. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong regarding its importance. Sorry if you took it that way.

As well, in certain, very specific situations, an i3 should be recommended over an FX-83XX, but those cases are few are far between. As you have said, games are moving away from relying on a small number of cores to using a larger number, so going AMD is making more and more sense. I don't agree with @Faceman if he recommends i3s willy-nelly without considering the kind of games the person asking is playing, as you say he does. I did read the post in which you two argued about whether a person should get an FX-8320 or an i3-4130. What was it, two pages?

The only time I have ever recommended an i3 over an FX8 was when someone particularly wanted to play an MMO.  That is it.  I do not recommend i3's willy nilly, I only use them as a comparison because when an i3 is besting an FX8, that only strengthens the argument that an i5 is superior to an FX8.

 

This is the post where it all started, someone asked about an i3 or an A10.  He makes the argument that because an i5 is at 95% useage in BF4(which it is not) that it is a bad processor and soon to be obsolete.

[harrynowl]

OK when you guys have finished jacking the thread for your own argument.

 

Give this a read OP, I know it's about L2 cache in the Conroe era but it shows the difference between performance and cache size.

 

Modern processors with more cores have more cache to feed those cores, L1 is small and fast, L2 is fast, reasonable in size and individual to each core (apart from in the FX CPUs where it's shared between two integer cores in 1 module). L3 is a large pool of shared memory that all cores can tap into, generally it's slow in comparison to L1/2 but is still faster than RAM. (And lower latency).

 

So cache is important but not the ruling factor, and generally the more cores the more cache on the box there will be (FX8350 has 16mb 8L2 8L3) (But i3 only has like 3mb L3).

 

Games generally perform better on CPUs with L3 cache than without, an example would be to compare the Athlon 760K and the FX4300 as they're similar in terms of architectural performance for a fair comparison.

[LukaP]

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!

 

(a THW graph)

 

 

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

faceman, unblock him and take it to a PM

 

 

as for the FX, i have nothing against it, the fact that AMD managed to keep selling it (tho at a low price) even tho it has the IPC of nahalem/lynnfield is amazing, and the concept of it is amazing too (modules) but it came at a wrong time. i say in about 5 years, we will see the old FX be just as good at new games as the haswell i5s will be(as haswell is about 2xIPC of FX, and i5 has half the cores, they should be rather equal at games then), but by then it will be irrelevant as we will have probably the successor to cannonlake and the new FX and the situation will be completly different.

 

but if AMD managed to take that module approach to the next level and increase the IPC (through some achitectural changes and a die shrink) we could see 12core cpus from them that could very well rival a 4770k in productivity. (i dont see them increasing IPC twofold in just one generation really)

[Shakaza]

The only time I have ever recommended an i3 over an FX8 was when someone particularly wanted to play an MMO.  That is it.  I do not recommend i3's willy nilly, I only use them as a comparison because when an i3 is besting an FX8, that only strengthens the argument that an i5 is superior to an FX8.

 

This is the post where it all started, someone asked about an i3 or an A10.  He makes the argument that because an i5 is at 95% useage in BF4(which it is not) that it is a bad processor and soon to be obsolete.

Than that's perfectly acceptable. Thank you for adequately defending your recommendations.

[Faa]

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

Toms hardware is usually a bad source. If you would check the frame times latency it kinda doesn't make any sense, the more fps a cpu can push than another it means the faster one will have lower frame times but seems like they went complety the illogical way. GPU's are always the source of frame latencies, can be effected by the cpu when it's bottlenecking or the gpu itself is complety responsible for it. Soon they might do the same shit with ram and motherboards

Last time they made an article of 20 pages about vram but they didnt tell us what happens if we run out of vram and when we need more vram. I'm pretty sure toms hardware has been atleast once responsible making someone convince to get AMD instead of Intel for WoW. PCgameshardware.de does atleast do 720p tests to simulate cpu limited scenario's to give you an idea of how all those cpu's will perform in 25m raids.

[Totally-A-Hero]

Why cant we be friends,Why cant we be friends,Why cant we be friends. Why you guys fighting AGAIN, we should be trying to help this guy not fighting.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Why cant we be friends,Why cant we be friends,Why cant we be friends. Why you guys fighting AGAIN, we should be trying to help this guy not fighting.

that's what i tried to do and unfortunately i was convinced that L3 cache was faster and i was wrong (i was aware it was important for gaming and this was the point i wanted to make) so Faceman jumped on it like a starved dog on fresh meat and it all went downhill from there...as usual. i should no longer post anything or make a new account. i'm sorry.

[MG2R]

Since @proaliahmadr, after two pages worth of bickering over the good

ol' Intel vs. AMD argument, still hasn't had a full answer, here goes:

 

Cache is the fastest memory available to a processor. It's embedded

on the IC and right next to the actual computational cores. It only

stores the most recently used or soon to be used  instructions for the

CPU. For example, say you have a program which has a loop in which

it adds 1 to a variable a thousand times. In such a case, the instruction,

along with the variable, and the byte 1 would be stored in cache, so

the processor can execute the loop insanely fast, without having to wait

for the slow (in comparison to cache) RAM.

 

In recent years, the available cache has grown significantly. Where it

used to be only a few kB, now you have multiple MB of cache on a

decent processor. There are different levels of cache: L1, L2, L3, L4,

and so on. The higher the level, the further away it is from the actual

computational core. L1 is right next to the core and always dedicated

to a single core. L2 is usually shared amongst two cores, L3 then gets

shared over 4 cores or the entire processor (depending on the

architecture of the processor, of course). Usually, the lowest level cache

is the smallest and the fastest.

 

The caches aren't only used to speed up computation. They are also

used to speed up communication between two cores. For example,

take a multithreaded program which uses one thread to calculate

something, the result of which then gets used in a calculation in a

second thread. Instead of storing the result of thread one in RAM,

which is slow, thread one can store it in L2 cache, where the second

thread (running on a core using the same L2 cache) can the read it

from. This speeds up communication between cores significantly.

 

That's the CPU cache system in a nutshell. In a PC there are lots of

caches used to speed up all sorts of things. The basic idea is always

that the cache used is faster than the thing it's connected to, but a

lot smaller as well, because it costs more to make.

[Totally-A-Hero]

Since @proaliahmadr, after two pages worth of bickering over the good

ol' Intel vs. AMD argument, still hasn't had a full answer, here goes:

 

Cache is the fastest memory available to a processor. It's embedded

on the IC and right next to the actual computational cores. It only

stores the most recently used or soon to be used  instructions for the

CPU. For example, say you have a program which has a loop in which

it adds 1 to a variable a thousand times. In such a case, the instruction,

along with the variable, and the byte 1 would be stored in cache, so

the processor can execute the loop insanely fast, without having to wait

for the slow (in comparison to cache) RAM.

 

In recent years, the available cache has grown significantly. Where it

used to be only a few kB, now you have multiple MB of cache on a

decent processor. There are different levels of cache: L1, L2, L3, L4,

and so on. The higher the level, the further away it is from the actual

computational core. L1 is right next to the core and always dedicated

to a single core. L2 is usually shared amongst two cores, L3 then gets

shared over 4 cores or the entire processor (depending on the

architecture of the processor, of course).

 

The caches aren't only used to speed up computation. They are also

used to speed up communication between two cores. For example,

take a multithreaded program which uses one thread to calculate

something, the result of which then gets used in a calculation in a

second thread. Instead of storing the result of thread one in RAM,

which is slow, thread one can store it in L2 cache, where the second

thread (running on a core using the same L2 cache) can the read it

from. This speeds up communication between cores significantly.

 

That's the CPU cache system in a nutshell. In a PC there are lots of

caches used to speed up all sorts of things. The basic idea is always

that the cache used is faster than the thing it's connected to, but a

lot smaller as well, because it costs more to make.

Thank you good sir for acctually helping the OP

[lucidchrome]

Cache is like those buttons on your polo shirt. Yeah, we don't pay that much attention to them as long as the polo shirt makes us look good.

[Wow Such Doge]

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...

Why did you say thank you?

You're not even a girl...

https://twitter.com/janez46

[proaliahmadr]

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.

Ey Ey Ey why u all debating?

I already upgrade my PC...

Its already delivered 3hours ago...

Did u not see my new thread i_build_nanosuits?

Faa say if the GPU already reached 99% load its cannot make any different unless you upgrade the GPU the performance will increase...

Intel i5 have 4 core can play any games...

Fx-8xxx have 8 core but performance its not have any different even with FX-4xxx if i paired it with Mid End Card like R9 270 - R9-280X...

Except i buy High End Card like R9 290 above it will make different...

[i_build_nanosuits]

Ey Ey Ey why u all debating?

I already upgrade my PC...

Its already delivered 3hours ago...

Did u not see my new thread i_build_nanosuits?

Faa say if the GPU already reached 99% load its cannot make any different unless you upgrade the GPU the performance will increase...

Intel i5 have 4 core can play any games...

Fx-8xxx have 8 core but performance its not have any different even with FX-4xxx if i paired it with Mid End Card like R9 270 - R9-280X...

Except i buy High End Card like R9 290 above it will make different...

yes Faa is right, most games nowadays are GPU bound and you need an high-end graphics card to really notice the difference between the CPU's...this is true. Good luck man and enjoy your new PC!

so you went with what? FX-4300?

[proaliahmadr]

Yeah i play with FX-4300 and R9 270 now..

Its very very very FUN right now almost play any games on Ultra without Max AA of course at 720p

And i see on Steam now Cryengine is Available..

When i see the system requirement its like this...

This is not game,but a game engine...

• Minimum:
  • OS: Windows Vista SP1, Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 (64bit)
    
  • Processor: Intel Dual-Core 2GHz or AMD Dual-Core 2GHz
    
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
    
  • Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 400 series or AMD Radeon HD 6000 series
    
  • DirectX: Version 11
    
  • Hard Drive: 8 GB available space
    
  • Sound Card: DirectX Compatible Sound Card with latest drivers
    

• Recommended:
  • OS: Windows 7, Windows 8.1 (64-bit)
    
  • Processor: Intel Quad-Core (i5 2300) or AMD Octo-Core (FX 8150)
    
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
    
  • Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 660Ti or greater, AMD Radeon HD 7950 or greater
    
  • DirectX: Version 11
    
  • Hard Drive: 8 GB available space
    
  • Sound Card: DirectX Compatible Sound Card with latest drivers
    

Even game engine when paired with HD 7950 Just need FX-81XXX for make the GPU run on its 100% performance.

And i think maybe Intel "backstab" AMD because they put wrong system spec...

FX-8350 with HD 7850???

LOL???

I use FX-4300 for my R9 270 thats CPU run very very very well

Aahahhahaha

Correct me if im wrong please