L2 cache and performance

[technique]

Hi!

Now I have Athlon XP (133x11) 256 Mb L2 Cache on socket A.
I'm want change my processor and have two overclocked =) possibilities - Sempron (200x10) 128 Mb and Athlon Barton (200x11) 512 Mb (difference in cost).

Which one I need select?

I'm think, what effects alghorythms not too big and may located on small L2 cache. But if I want to use all 6 effects, how much L2 cache I need? But maybe I wrong and only FSB influences on performance?

I'm try to search this question in forum, but about L2 cache can't find nothing.

Sorry for bad english 8)

[Edited on 31-10-2005 by technique]

[technique]

Hi again.

Let's compare two processors. Both have same mhz, same system frequency, but First have 128 Kb L2-cache and Second 1 Mb. First proseccors are from low-end sector and Seconds from mid-high. Difference in cost not too small.
Ok, I'm understand, what Second is better. But how much? In Resolume of course. Would I need to buy, faster processor(in mhz) or with more L2-cache?

[Anonymous]

what socket is the sempron for? is the barton also socket a? if the sempron is for socket 754, go with the sempron - there is a great performance increase with that socket. I have a p4 3.2ghz with 1mb L2, and it is out performed by my amd64 3000+ overclocked to 2.4Ghz. The amd64 runs at much lower ghz, but gives better performance with only 512 L2.

[technique]

Yep. My motherboard is socket A.
And I know about AMD and about performance index used special for see "real" performance of processor. But I'm compare not Intel vs AMD =) And you talking about 64 bit processors, but Resolume does not benefit from 64-bit processors.
I'm want to compare processors with same frequency, but with different cache size.
Maybe anyone have possibility(two processors) for check this problem?

[continuity-B]

Don't discount 64 bit processors though, they run perfectly well in 32bit and don't really cost more

The most suitable laptop in my pricerange just happened to have one - I love my AMD Turion64 ML34