L2 CACHE

[Impediment]

Norton System Works says I have no L2 cache (L2 cache = 0). I have 933 Pent III with 256 L2 cache installed. Does anyone know a way I can check my cache? TIA

 

[Comtech]

Norton won't find your L2 because it resides apart from the main CPU (it's on the same board), unlike the FCPGA chips, which contain the L2.
Try WCPUID from

http://www.h-oda.com/

Cheers,
Jim
reboot@pcmech.com

http://members.cnx.net/reboot/

Moderator at

http://www.56k.com

Staff at

http://www.pcmech.com

Windows 9x/ME instructor.
Jim's Modems:

http://members.cnx.net/reboot/modems/

 

[Impediment]

Thank You, Jim!

 

[swayda]

You won't find any L2 caches on newer Pentiums because they don't have one. They have L1 caches which means the cache is on the same board as the CPU.

Don Swayser

 

[twertman68]

the 933 pent 111 is a FCPGA chip (socket 370)and has the L1 and L2 located right in the chip.if you have the 933 pent 111 then you have 256 L2 cache.the software may be looking for the L2 outside the cpu.you cant always trust software just look at windows it self.

 

[Impediment]

Since I first started this thread I have found NSW to be incorrect in saying I have no L-2 cache. I have and it is full. But now I have read that if my computer has to much memory (Windows 98se)the procesor may not be able to use its L2 cache. I think butchrecon might be correct in saying 98 can recognize all of my memory (512mb)but it cannot address all of it. To make a long story short, the old adage "you can't have to much memory" is not correct. I will probably end up taking out one of my NEW 256 mb modules. BUMMER!!! All this memory has caused me alot of head aches and money.

 

[twertman68]

there is also settings in your bois which enables or disables L2 cache.make sure it is enable.i found out using windows 95,98,ME 128 megs is fine.anything over add no or little performance.with windows 2000 pro and nt more than 128 megs is better.in the future when windows comes out with newer operating systems i sure more will be required.

 

[Impediment]

It is my understanding speed is limited by system resourses, which is restricted in 9x but unlimited in the NT kernal. So, I suppose additional memory reaches a point of diminishing returns quickly in 98 but not so in NT.