Motherboards socket7 cache?

Edited text of question

The most you will find is 1meg because the anything more that and would lose performance, 1meg is the top.

whaddaya mean anything exceeding 1Mb would create perfomance loss? How? and why?
I don't get it at all, the main reason more cache is not employed today is cost and demand, most PC-users don't care for anything but CPU speed.

Most motherboards are built with 256k to 1mb cache on board. It would be impossible to find one with 2mb, even though it would actually work if you have a minimum of 64mb of Ram. You need to find a motherboard that has the ability to be able to upgraded the cache via a dips or simm type package chip, but I believe they are very rare and will be extremely hard to find.

Mike

yearh I figured out that much by myself, only exception being that I didn't even consider it possible to find user upgradeable cache and like motherboards.
Story is like this; normal MB's are fitted with 512Kb this is especially true for the now older TX chipsets. The new Ali chipsets supports 1Mb and the new VIA chipsets all the way up till 2Mb. I just need a hint on where to go find it.

My best guess would be to go to WWW.MOTHERBOARDS.ORG and search around and you may find what your looking for.


Mike

I agree, 2mb cache would only serve to slow the performance down.  Although the manufacturer states that it is *possible* to have 2mb L2 cache, it doesn't mean that it is realistic.

ie.  A 386 pc could address 4GB of ram, but just try and cram 4gb of ram into that old box and see how far you get.

The larger the cache, the more "traffic jams" will occurr as a result of that larger cache.  It's like a 300lb balerina trying to be graceful, it just don't work that way! (unless she's got soul!)

If you take a look at how your computer uses what memory it has available to it, as a whole, you'll quickly realize that having a full 2 mb of cache would not be beneficial in any way.  More does not necessarily mean beter, sometimes more is just.. more.

That is why the P2 processor only has 512k cache on it, and the Celeron A processor has 128k L2 cache, and at 300MHz it will smoke the standard P2-300MHz w/512k L2 Cache any day of the week (and twice on Sundays!)

Well, that's my 2 cents.

JRHelgeson

IS EVERYBODY AROUND HERE INSANE?????????
since when did >STATIC RAM< become slow and since when did the amount of cache decide how fast the cache access would be???
The "genius" part of the PII is its "backside" cache which means that cache access can happen with a different (faster) speed than the system (normal RAM PCI) bus. sic.
The Celeron will never be faster than the PII, It's exactly the same instruction set, they use same internal structure, Only difference being the amount of cache. Cache RAM being expensive that's why the celeron only have so small amount of it.
I have not seen these alleged test where the celeron claim superior perfomance to the PII but I know that if they show anything beneficial to the celeron like you imply, it only means that Intel have fiddled with the benchmarks.
R.T.F.M.
please I asked about socket 7 not socket !!
anybody out there know what they are talking about?

*I have been to www.motherboards.org 

egual

Adjusted points to 150

*grinning* hi egual, I occasionally know what I am talking about,  with a following wind, guess you'll be wanting a machine to put more than 128mb of ram in then? to want so much cache. would sure love to see a celeron cope with 256mb of ram *grin* built in obsolescence, intel sure cooked that one up well with bill. Anyway, all i can suggest is looking to server intended motherboards rather than desktop ones, some do even come in single socket 7 processor at/x format flavours, and have seen them with obscene amounts of cache 4mb or so. Will probably mean that you have to have built in scsi 2 ultra fast and wide with it though. no sites to hand, but presume that if you now look for server boards something will soon turn up, or at least lead you in the direction of finding large cache modules.

regards,

Road Warrior.

Cache needs to be flushed and refilled on misses. At some point the added overhead cancels the speed advantage. If you want more speed, consider a faster cpu or overclocking.

I'm with "JRHelgeson" on this one.

I've heard that more RAM will slow performance and they said why, but I've never heard that about cache memory slowing performance.
egual, check the range of memory the chipset is able to cache, decide how much RAM are you gonna use and decide on the size of the cache that will  cover your RAM and chipset capabilities.

Story is as follows:
I've decided out of interset to get a machine capable of doing 3d graphics at a tolerable speed. tolerable means in this case affordable.
looking at what's on the market I squared it down to a PC for following reasons I can get it with scsi no problems its cheap it will run unix and othr hw options are quite common.
I did not want a mac because I'd have to have an older model in order to get integrated scsi, theyve abandoned scsi in favour of ide, same goes for sun surprise, surprise.
anyway I have bought a machine now I'd just like a highperfomance
lowcost solution like a 400Mhz Amd w/ 512Mb RAm and integrated uwscsi or so.
Now working in windows once again I hate so much I'm gonna install Linux rightaway. hah.
but next time I'll skip this pc bussines and head straight for a real machine like an Alpha or an old sgi!! Or more likely the new amiga goodbye worries goodday happiness and joy.

hahahaha c'ya

PS: RAM is pretty cheap today so I'll get myself as much possible meaning that extra cache will be utilized!

now that was some excellent work xema you really deserve the credit. Thank you you're my favourite.

PS: any clue on where to get a cheap unix box?

egual:

Try Linux and for my reading get Red Hat, it has the easiest set up of all.  Before getting it che the Red Hat site to know about the compability with the hardware.

If the computer that you are building has enough hard disk you may make it dual boot, Linux/Win

That's exactly what I've already done.
Only problem now is to get my video card (#9 rev. IV) to work under Xwindows and as far as I can see there are no free drivers available. Any help there?

Dear Xema you know what; the best floating point perfomance is the Alpha21164 but its' alas, still rather expensive.
And second I Like AMD for what it is, competetion.