1MB vs 2MB Cache (Much difference?)

[Potatocodone]

So my friend's laptop has the awful i943/940GML chipset (socket M).

He is trying to get a bit more life out of his laptop. So far he has upgraded to 2x1GB from 2x512MB DDR2 (motherboard's chipset max memory is 2GB... weak)

His CPU is a Intel Dual Core T2080 1.73GHz 1MB cache. His chipset is only compatible with 533MHz FSB CPUs meaning the highest CPU he can get is the T5300 (1.73GHz 2MB cache).

I can grab one off of fleabay for roughly ~$32.

He does all his schoolwork on the laptop, watch movies, plays facebook games, and whatnot. Although his CPU can handle it all he was hoping to make his laptop a bit more snappier.

Think it is worth upgrading?

 

[Dangman]

These links should help:
Does cache size really boost performance? @ Tom's
Influence of L2 Cache Size on Conroe Processors Performance @ XBit
UT3 Review: Cache Scaling: 1MB, 2MB, 4MB @ AnandTech
2MB or 4MB Cache? @ AnandTech
Influence of L2 Cache Size on Wolfdale Performance @ Xbit

Do note however that the T5300 will be 10% faster clock for clock than the T2080 without factoring in the cache size difference. So $32 for at least a 10% performance increase is not too bad. The larger L2 cache is just extra gravy.

 

[EricFX1984]

go for the extra cache, you you kick your self in the nuts if you don't...

 

[defaultluser]

For $32 you can't go wrong with more cache. 2MB is the sweet-spot for Core 2 architecture - you get increased performance moving from 2MB to 4MB cache, but not as big a performance jump as 1MB to 2MB.