Right from the first benchmark test results to the last one, it's pretty obvious that a lower L2 cache latency does not equate higher performance for the processor or the system overall. It's possible that a lack of synchronicity with the L1 cache and processor core is one of the reasons why a lower L2 cache latency did not translate into higher performance. In any case, the performance difference between the fastest L2 cache latency and the slowest is very small - less than 2.5%.

This is good news for overclockers who would like to increase their chances of overclocking their processors higher by increasing the latency of a stubborn L2 cache. With little discernable difference in performance, it now makes sense to increase the latency of the L2 cache, even up to 15, as long as it enables the processor to run faster. Whatever loss in performance incurred from change in L2 cache latency would be well made up for by the increase in the processor speed.

Even though the performance difference between the fastest L2 cache latency and the slowest is minimal at best, every percentage point counts to the optimizer. A percentage here and a percentage there - it all adds up to become a pretty impressive difference. So, for optimizers, I can only recommend the cache latency of 14 for the Intel Celeron running at 504MHz. That latency of 14 has consistently proven to be the best performer while the latency of 13 has consistently been the worst. Needless to say, avoid the cache latency of 13 at all cost, and not just on Fridays. :)