 |
 |
You seem to have the basics of Cache already. The lower level cache is faster and more expensive. Also, the more the better in all cases. But as an aside, the amount of cache is mostly irrelevent to the user on current processors. If you're interested in what processors are better, check out benchmarks on them and use that.
ConnectPro Online Support Expert
"I know what cache is and i also know that the more you have the better it is"
More is not always better:
- increase access times: think of your table in the library is the "cache" for all the books on the library shelf [main memory] - if you have a bigger table you can pile more books [data] on it, thus decrease the need to go the bookshelf [main memory] but it will also increase the time to find that one item that you need on the table.
- more effort in managment: you will probably agree that a manager managing 5 people will take much less effort than managing 50 people or 500 people; same goes for cache - there are overhead in managing cache as well and you have strike a balance.
- law of diminishing returns: cache works on the law of diminishing returns; the performance increase going from 1M to 2M maybe much more significant than going from 4M to 8MB, such that the cost for the cache increase does not correspond to level of performance increase in return.
"Why do all Intel core i# processors mention only the L3 cache? Does this mean that the L2 and L1 caches do not exist?"
If there is no L2 and L1, there can be no L3. 
It's purely a marketing decision; it's easier to market one number than 3 numbers that most people without computer architecture background would not understand (and as roparadi mentioned, such technicalities are not that important to an everyday computer shopper anyways).
"Does this mean that the AMD Phenom can handle tasks better than the Intel i5?"
Caching algorithm works differently between AMD and Intel. To described in simple terms, Intel caches works inclusively (items in L1 can be found in L2 and L3 as well) while AMD works exclusively (L2 only holds data that L1 no longer wants, and vise versa for L2/L3). [Source: Patterson and Hennessy, Computer Organization and Design, 4th Ed, p. 542] In certain cases one system may work better, but in other cases the reverse maybe true.
"L1 caches are relatively smaller compared to L2 and L3 caches... Considering this, which would be the better processor? the 2x128kb or the 2x64kb ?"
2x128kb should be better in most cases, but then a CPU with 2x128kb is also more expensive than the 2x64kb, plus uses more energy. That's why you have Pentium/Core i3/i5/i7 at different price points, to allow consumers to choose between the right level for performance at the price level they want.
I personally am a fan of AMD as well, I like the underdog 
however, as sad as it is the Phenom II will lose to the Core i7 in basically every benchmark out there (I have seen a few isolated incidents where certain gaming benchmarks have favored the Phenom II), Generally too value can come into play, most people believe that AMD offers better value overall (its cheaper to build a well balanced AMD based rig than an i7 based rig)
On the budget side of things Intel's i3 trades blows with AMD's Athlon II x4 (dual core HT vs quad core - some programs function far better having those 2 extra cores)
If you look at AMDs marketing strategy of late you will see they mirror these sentiments they are marketing "vision" which is a platform not a processor. Where AMD excels is IGP (internal graphics processor) their IGPs have been superior, Intel is closing the gap by bringing their IGP into the same package (same physical package, different piece of silicone) but AMD is working on bringing the IGP "on-die" (same piece of silicone) which MAY boost performance over Intel (some may remember that Intel's Core 2 quads were actually 2 dual core chips sitting side by side under the heat spreader whereas AMDs Phenoms were a Monolithic quad... and Intel won that performance match
