Enable L2Cache.....in Windows XP/2000


Recommended Posts

From Tweaktown.com

The L2, or second-level, cache, is an integral part of your CPU. However, XP is very shoddy at detecting it, so setting it manually is sometimes necessary. It's easy to do, though, you simply have to navigate to

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSession ManagerMemory Management

in the registry and find the value SecondLevelDataCache. You must then adjust it to the value (in kilobytes) of the L2 Cache of your processor.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/9904-enable-l2cachein-windows-xp2000/
Share on other sites

Look a here cowboy......you want a scientific proof.....then use "trial and error." Try the son of a b*tch out and if it don't do anything for you then that's your problem.....Not mine. I get much better performance.......what you still want numbers? Well too bad 'cause I got a life and I got stuff to do....girlfriends to do and that type of stuff. Give it a try. There's nothing more I can tell you!

I don't understand that the only way people can get rid of their own lack of knowledge is by being rude on various community groups.

By the way have you ever tried a utility (Free) which is called Mathlon that allows you to choose the speed of your L2 Cache where a lot of misbehaving is caused by the L2 is running to fast this utility will reconize most CPU'sbelow is the site you can download it from:

http://www.planetmirror.com/pub/3dfiles/tw...akfiles/memory/http://www.planetmirror.com/pub/3dfiles/tw...akfiles/memory/ :)

:) :) :)

some people just won't listen to the facts. fact: enabling the L2 cache boosts performance. There's no other way of me providing scientific proof than that. I didn't invent it...I'm just putting to use. And if you think I'm being rude....well then you try and explain to someone why Microsoft doesn't have it enabled by default. Hell who cares why!!! I don't work at microsoft and I don't care....just getting it to work is fine by me.

  Quote
I did the tweak as you said I enteren 256 as decimal but when I open the thread again it goes to hex and it is 100.

That is the way it is supposed to be. The hex value is 100 and the decimal value is 256. If you made the hex value 256 then the decimal value would be 598.

  Quote
it should say "SecondLevelDataCache"=dword:00000256 after you're done. Just enter 256 after going to modify by right clicking.

Well, if i enter 256 in Decimal...it doesn't turn out to be dword:00000256 , but instead it appears as:

"dword:00000100(256)"

???

:s

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • No, this is what Powertoys Run is aiming to be but is still only about a quarter of the way there. Tho with Raycast having a thriving third-party extensions store, don't think Powertoys Run will ever be able to catch up.
    • If you look at all RAID implementations that exist, you're going to find exceptions. However, all the modern consumer varieties tend to have some things in common (by default). I'll stick to describing those. When you add a disk to a RAID array, metadata is stored at the end of the disk. It records the array the disk is part of, which other disks are in the array, etc. This is called the RAID superblock. If you create a RAID 1 array, your operating system will see them all as a single disk that is very slightly smaller than a single disk (due to the superblock). Everything you write to the RAID disk gets written identically to each of its member disks by the storage controller. Technically, disks are read/written in blocks (each block is multiple sectors in size), but this is all transparent to the user. Every file you create or change or delete is created/changed/deleted on every member disk simultaneously. This is true whether you have 2 disks in the array or more than 2.  If one disk completely fails, you can still operate just fine off the remaining disk(s) (but see the caution below). If you remove one disk and attach it to another PC, it should work fine. The partition information and everything is all at the front of the disk, just as expected. The superblock will just appear as some extra junk at the very end of the disk, outside any partition. In some scenarios, where it is recognized as a RAID member disk from another PC, there might be an extra step before it will let you use it, but it's all very doable. Caution:  Blocks are read from the disks in a staggered fashion. For example, with 2 disks, all the odd blocks are read from one disk and all the even blocks are read from the other. By working together like this, read speeds can be practically doubled. But this comes with a huge drawback. If a disk doesn't fail completely, but instead develops bad sectors, you may not realize it. The bad sectors may happen to be in blocks that are never read on that disk. In some cases, people have had bad sectors develop on one disk, then had the other disk fail, and only then realized that the remaining disk has bad sectors and corrupt data. Every backup method has its pros and cons. Never trust just RAID, or just an external HDD, or just the cloud. Use multiple methods to backup important data.
    • Evidence that it affects "most" people negatively? Based on what? The fact that their are millions of users in fact show me the opposite, that "most" are quite happy.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Kavin25 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      Leonard grant earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      pcdoctorsnet earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rising Star
      Phillip0web went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • One Month Later
      Epaminombas earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      537
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      205
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      169
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      151
    5. 5
      Som
      127
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!