Did Anyone ever use this L2 cache Reg hack that had been pos

[pr-man 1]

Someone had posted this saying that Win2k only used 256k of your L2 cache by default. Anyone tried this? I have a 1meg L2 cache on my board and was wondering if this hack would help performance. Here it is:

 

REGEDIT4

 

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management]

"SecondLevelDataCache"=dword:00000200

[pfarrar 0]

This is only if Win2k can't detect your L2 cache size automatically.

 

200 = 512 in Hex ie. 512K

 

You need to put 400 if you have 1MB.

[pr-man 1]

ok well i checked my registry and noticed that mine is set to

 

"SecondLevelDataCache"=dword:00000000"

 

Does that mean that Win2k is not even seeing any of my 1 meg L2 cache?

[Unrealistic 0]

Wow, mine is all zeros too. Can someone elaborate on this further?

 

------------------

PIII650 @ 728

Abit BE6-2

256MB PC 100

3D Prophet SDR 32MB

[Ekstreme 0]

This tweaks relieves NT of the task of detectin the L2 cache of your CPU, that IT!

 

1meg cache on your CPU?? I don't think so. when you change the value, set it to decimal and input the correct ammount. You will probably not even notic any change to your system running. it's just makes NT's life a lil easier during hardware poling

[nam ng 0]

On older SMP machines which share the L2 cache, this setting makes significant noticable difference in performance. And on those old mobos the L2 cache-size varied with manufacturers, the original assumption of L2=256K was the default.

 

[This message has been edited by nam ng (edited 15 March 2000).]

[Turbo Grunkamoj 0]

So what you are saying is:

If "they are all zeros", then win2k will still use the 512kb you might have but it autodetects them?

Or are there zeros an indication that win2k doesnt use it at all?

[Ekstreme 0]

You got it turbo, it polls the chips, for the correct cache levels.

[pr-man 1]

oh I thought it was talking about the 1 meg L2 cache I have on my motherboard. hehe