intel C2D processors

[killamike]

are 4mb shared L2 cache proccessors waaaaaay faster than a 2mb?

[illutionz]

are you trying to compare C2D with CD??
if yes, it's not only about the speed (which is faster on C2D) but C2D has a better power management and runs cooler than CD too

[killamike]

noo.... i'm not comparing those 2... i'm comparing imac's 1.83's C2D and 2ghz C2D. although they only have a little difference in speed, but one is 2mb and the other is 4mb cache

[smax]

Generally, the more cache you can get the better. Larger caches mean that less stuff has to be written to memory or the hard drive. This can be a bit of a bottleneck in the grand scheme of things.

Personally, I'd go 2GHz with 4MB caches.

[JeffDM]

are 4mb shared L2 cache proccessors waaaaaay faster than a 2mb?

I don't think it's a major improvement. Having the extra cache helps a lot with heavy-duty server apps, but for desktop / notebook use, I haven't seen any benchmarks that show 1->2MB have more than a marginal impact, much less 2->4MB. Even back in the day when you could have basically the same core with 512MB up to 2MB, the benchmarks didn't show much benefit except for server apps.