Ok, we have know for a long time that Fs is very cpu dependent. So when selecting processors for a new FS build, I see L2 cache and now I see L3 cache. I have read and understand the concept of L2 and L3. No need to explain what either are.So has anyone got an opinion if a larger L2 cache chip,(with no L3), is better than a chip with a small L2 and a large L3? For FS that is. I'll narrow your opinion to only Fs as that is what this computer will be doing. Nothing else.Any opinions or actual users of L3 cache chips?Thanks,GLB

You won't find many chips from the same architectural family that feature one level of cache and not the other so your question isn't really valid unless you're only considering a couple specific chips like the Phenom II 810 vs. the 910 (4MB L3 vs. 6MB L3). In that case the difference is minimal, as illustrated here. All else being equal, clock speed is king for FSX (and most apps, for that matter). Someday that statement will change to "core count is king" and then "bandwidth is king" and who knows where it will go from there.

You won't find many chips from the same architectural family that feature one level of cache and not the other so your question isn't really valid unless you're only considering a couple specific chips like the Phenom II 810 vs. the 910 (4MB L3 vs. 6MB L3). In that case the difference is minimal, as illustrated here. All else being equal, clock speed is king for FSX (and most apps, for that matter). Someday that statement will change to "core count is king" and then "bandwidth is king" and who knows where it will go from there.

I think its pretty valid. Below are two chips that are quite identical IMHO but have drastically different cache specs, hence my question. The cache stands out, all alse pretty close.Here is the chip that sparked my interest.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819103680as compared to a chip without L3 like this one:http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...AIN#detailspecs

As tech stated don't worry too much on the L2/L3 amounts. Also Tigerdirect is listing the specs wrong for the 545. The 550 and 545 have identical cache. With the two chips you linked the 550 is a better buy due to being a black edition allowing the multiplier to be unlocked and is a high clock to start. Also the 550 when paired with the right MB can potentially unlock the other cores (there are 4 on the chip with 2 locked) and OC to 4Ghz on air. Out of those two definitely go with the Phenom 2 x2 550 or even look at the x3 720.

I don't really consider anything with less than 4 cores to be truly worthwhile anymore so I didn't even think of the X2 line. Nonetheless my point stands. Lesser cache within the same family has very little impact on performance. Missing an entire level of cache can impact performance but not nearly as much as being short a couple cores or a GHz.

I don't really consider anything with less than 4 cores to be truly worthwhile anymore so I didn't even think of the X2 line. Nonetheless my point stands. Lesser cache within the same family has very little impact on performance. Missing an entire level of cache can impact performance but not nearly as much as being short a couple cores or a GHz.

Ok, cool. Thanks for your attention. Appreciated.GLB

Phenom II X4 600 series vs. Phenom II X4 900 series. The 600 series chips feature no L3 cache and are on average 10% slower than the equivalent 900 series chip (same clock frequency and core count).So while not entirely negligible, you can see that L3 cache is not an end-all-be-all architectural feature. Better to have it than not, but if it's the difference between going quad core and tri core, go for the L3-less quad.