«

I noticed that L2 cache flaw from XP x86 has ported over to x64. This may be
the reason for some of the complaints about slow machines. Since Windows
doesn't calculate L2 cache settings properly, it defaults to 128 kb. To fix,
open the registry editor...drill down to...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Session Manager\Memory
Management

Click on Memory Management in left pane.
In right pane, notice SecondLevelDataCache value is 0x00000000(0).
Double click and change value to 200 for 512 kb cache or 400 for 1024 kb
cache.
Click OK.
Now the value should read 0x00000200 (512) or (1024).

Since this is my first dual core processor, I believe that you should set it
to the individual processor, not the sum. Meaning, I have 2x512 L2 cache,
which equals 1024 total, but I set the cache to 512. Does anybody know any
different?

Out of curiosity (backing up the registry first of course), I have changed
the value as per your suggestion. My cpu has 1MB L2 cache.

I haven't necessarily noticed poor caching performance, but interested to
see if this does indeed make a difference.



--
Jane, but not plain 64 bit enabled
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation.

See
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...c_evl_FHCJ.asp

http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;q183063 relates to
NT with pre-Pentium II processors, and appears to be the source of the myth.



"Griff6r" <> wrote in message
news:84569F95-DCF6-4DCF-AA27-...
>I noticed that L2 cache flaw from XP x86 has ported over to x64. This may
>be
> the reason for some of the complaints about slow machines. Since Windows
> doesn't calculate L2 cache settings properly, it defaults to 128 kb. To
> fix,
> open the registry editor...drill down to...
>
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Session Manager\Memory
> Management
>
> Click on Memory Management in left pane.
> In right pane, notice SecondLevelDataCache value is 0x00000000(0).
> Double click and change value to 200 for 512 kb cache or 400 for 1024 kb
> cache.
> Click OK.
> Now the value should read 0x00000200 (512) or (1024).
>
> Since this is my first dual core processor, I believe that you should set
> it
> to the individual processor, not the sum. Meaning, I have 2x512 L2 cache,
> which equals 1024 total, but I set the cache to 512. Does anybody know any
> different?

I have to thank you, Dominic, for that link. For the longest time, I have
been looking for info on several of the issues that is targeted here. I
dabbled in VC6.0 for a while and have searched the 'resource kit' on many
occasions but never stumbled on any of this before. (Not that I can
remember).

Although targeted for win2k and server, much of this would be valid also for
winx64, I suspect - but nice to see comments from the initiate to keep your
fingers off this specific key. It even makes sense when you read about it.


Tony. . .


"Dominic Payer" <dominic@dc_payer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:...
> See
> http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...c_evl_FHCJ.asp
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;q183063 relates to
> NT with pre-Pentium II processors, and appears to be the source of the
> myth.
>
>
>
> "Griff6r" <> wrote in message
> news:84569F95-DCF6-4DCF-AA27-...
>>I noticed that L2 cache flaw from XP x86 has ported over to x64. This may
>>be
>> the reason for some of the complaints about slow machines. Since Windows
>> doesn't calculate L2 cache settings properly, it defaults to 128 kb. To
>> fix,
>> open the registry editor...drill down to...
>>
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Session
>> Manager\Memory
>> Management
>>
>> Click on Memory Management in left pane.
>> In right pane, notice SecondLevelDataCache value is 0x00000000(0).
>> Double click and change value to 200 for 512 kb cache or 400 for 1024 kb
>> cache.
>> Click OK.
>> Now the value should read 0x00000200 (512) or (1024).
>>
>> Since this is my first dual core processor, I believe that you should set
>> it
>> to the individual processor, not the sum. Meaning, I have 2x512 L2 cache,
>> which equals 1024 total, but I set the cache to 512. Does anybody know
>> any
>> different?
>
>