Does the FW800 1.25GHz x2 module really only have 1MB L3 cache?

[s0s]

I was going through and comparing specs when I noticed something peculiar. The dual 1.25GHz FW800 model only has 1MB of L3 cache, according to this page http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/specs/powermac_g4_1.25_dp_mdd_fw800.html

However, these dual 1.25GHz non-FW800 models have 2MB of L3 cache:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_server_g4/specs/macserver_g4_1.25_dp_mdd.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/specs/powermac_g4_1.25_dp_mdd.html

So I'm confused. I always thought (except for old Macs) that the cache was usually on the CPU itself. Is there something different about the dual 1.25GHz module for the FW800? Or is that a typo?

It looks like they all have 256KB of L2 cache on the CPUs themselves, and the L3 cache on the module board, but I don't know why the modules would be different. Why Apple would go out of their way to make a 1MB module for their more "advanced" FW800 is weird.

[IIO]

i think the server is from the same date and the only other difference besides the cache is the missing fw-800 port - does it make that "less advanced?"

from what i know it is a very rare model, but it could be fun to actually test reverb plug-ins with 1 mb versus with 2mb.

otoh, i couldnt care less, because the "OS9" dual 1,25 also has 2mb cache.

[MacTron]

see also:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,2854.msg17991.html#msg17991

[s0s]

Charts make everything easier lol thanks!

[mrhappy]

Charts make everything easier lol thanks!

Yes indeed... and MacTron makes there BEST charts!!

[IIO]

okay, so it is one year later than the OS 9 one but from the same year than the fw-800 "client" they sold. this still doenst explain anything.