Vista - CPU L2 Cache Memory setting in Vista

Yeah. Again: this is off the top of my head... but I'm pretty sure my memory is accurate on this one.

The design is curious. The L2 cache latency is improved, but the L3 cache is nowhere near as fast as even the current generation's L2 cache... so it's not a clear win-win situation. In some scenarios, it will result in an application running faster. In others... maybe not so much.

Though, I expect with the on-die memory controller and other enhancements, no code will actually execute slower than on current processors.

One thing we'll all have to get ready for is buying new motherboards - as with the new design comes a new socket (which hasn't happened for Intel in, what, 3 years?)

I have an Intel Pentium D 925 2 x 2mb L2, so would that be 1000 hex for a 4 meg cache?
I ask because the cores in pentium d's are just stuck together and the memory has to use the fsb to exchange data unlike the dou's.

You would use hex 800 for 2megs; each core has a seperate cache, on your processor.

Cheers Itwally I thought this might be the case but I was not quite 100%, I did set it 2 1000 hex with no problems but I have just put it down 2 800 hex.

No problem. Glad I could be of service.

As previously mentioned: Microsoft's own information on this setting indicates that it is a legacy item that will have no effect any CPU made in the past several years. Still, the correct value would be 0x800.

-ltwally

Hi guys
Intel Core 2 Duo specs are here
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Specifications

Piotr

Hello,

This is my first time here and I was wondering why when I perform the system health report it reports that my L2 cache size as 0. I have a Q9650 cpu which has an L2 cache of 12mb. I did go into registry editor and changed the Secondleveldatacache to 12288 decimal. I am just wondering if there is a reason it is reporting it this way or if there could be a problem with my cpu or motherboard?

Any help would be appreciated as I have searched everywhere for an answer to this but have come up with nothing.

Thanks so much for your help,
Riverswild

I have no idea why Windows reports zero. What does CPU-Z say?

In the end, it doesn't matter what Windows thinks your L2 cache is. L2 cache is managed by the CPU, itself - not by your OS.

The "secondleveldatacahce" registry setting is an old legacy value, and has zero impact on any modern processor that I'm aware of. (The last CPU, to my knowledge, that it would have impacted was the Pentium II.)

I've seen a few problems with the Yorkfield cores, like Windows reporting 3 of the 4 cores as Unknown Devices in Device Manager.

Have you tried upgrading your BIOS for the motherboard?

Hello,

Thank you for the quick reply. CPU-Z reports 6144 x2 for L2 cache. I was just worried that maybe there is something wrong with my hardware as the system health report is reporting 0. I noticed this when I was doing a 3dmark06 and in my system details for my cpu it is also reporting L2 cache as 0. But if L2 cache is managed by the CPU and not by windows then I guess I have nothing to worry about. I am very new to this and this is my first computer build. It is very nerve racking for me.

Thank you so much for your reply and help!!
Riverswild