Second Level Data Cache
Some tweak guides suggest changing this to your cpu L2 cache manually in registry using decimal. . . . How would you go about resetting this to it's original state ? Thanx;).
Some tweak guides suggest changing this to your cpu L2 cache manually in registry using decimal.... How would you go about resetting this to it's original state ?
Thanx;)
Thanx;)
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Gunner,
The SecondLevelDataCache on NT/W2K/XP defaults to a setting of 0, which is 256K.
To check the setting goto the following registry key:
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
Look for the key:
SecondLevelDataCache: DWORD: 0
Remember the default setting is 0, i.e. 256K, if your CPU has 512K, then change this to 0x200 (512 decimal).
The SecondLevelDataCache on NT/W2K/XP defaults to a setting of 0, which is 256K.
To check the setting goto the following registry key:
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
Look for the key:
SecondLevelDataCache: DWORD: 0
Remember the default setting is 0, i.e. 256K, if your CPU has 512K, then change this to 0x200 (512 decimal).
You probably haven't noticed anything because there may not have been anything to notice. This particular tweak applied to older processor technologies, and is not needed with more modern hardware. For a full explanation, check this out:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q183063
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q183063
Alien,
I've tried this liitle tip on a Pentium 133, PII's and PIII's and like you I haven't noticed any difference either, but its there if you want to try it.
The Knowledge Base article that Clutch points has this particularly sentence which maybe why there is no difference in performance:
"This entry is designed as a secondary source of cache size information for computers on which the HAL cannot detect the L2 cache."
I've tried this liitle tip on a Pentium 133, PII's and PIII's and like you I haven't noticed any difference either, but its there if you want to try it.
The Knowledge Base article that Clutch points has this particularly sentence which maybe why there is no difference in performance:
"This entry is designed as a secondary source of cache size information for computers on which the HAL cannot detect the L2 cache."
Quote:
You probably haven't noticed anything because there may not have been anything to notice. This particular tweak applied to older processor technologies, and is not needed with more modern hardware. For a full explanation, check this out:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q183063
Thanks clutch, I had my suspicions on that one. There are so many "tweaks" That don't do anything or are someones hunch blown out of proportion.
If you look in a popular tweaking program like TweakXP even, under "hardware tweaks/cpu tweaks", you will find this setting. I mean, all or at least nearly all (can anyone confirm this) the choices there are hardware this tweak doesn't even apply to (an anything it does probably wouldn't run XP that well anyway).
Do the authors realise it does nothing yet include it anyway to make you feel you are getting value for money? Or do they simply just blindly put any rumour they hear of straight into their product, without doing the research first?
I'm also tired of the people that tweak simpily because they can (toggle an option without even thinking which way suites them) and complain later that their windows is faulty.
Just be more careful with the tweaks people. If they don't improve the performance, change them back.
But the main responsibility is on the authors of these guides/commercial tweak products.
You probably haven't noticed anything because there may not have been anything to notice. This particular tweak applied to older processor technologies, and is not needed with more modern hardware. For a full explanation, check this out:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q183063
Thanks clutch, I had my suspicions on that one. There are so many "tweaks" That don't do anything or are someones hunch blown out of proportion.
If you look in a popular tweaking program like TweakXP even, under "hardware tweaks/cpu tweaks", you will find this setting. I mean, all or at least nearly all (can anyone confirm this) the choices there are hardware this tweak doesn't even apply to (an anything it does probably wouldn't run XP that well anyway).
Do the authors realise it does nothing yet include it anyway to make you feel you are getting value for money? Or do they simply just blindly put any rumour they hear of straight into their product, without doing the research first?
I'm also tired of the people that tweak simpily because they can (toggle an option without even thinking which way suites them) and complain later that their windows is faulty.
Just be more careful with the tweaks people. If they don't improve the performance, change them back.
But the main responsibility is on the authors of these guides/commercial tweak products.
