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