L2 cache comparison

[mightymightybobo]

Hi!

I'm thinking of buying a new system and these amd markings are confusing me. There are two versions of the 3200+ for example. One 2,0 ghz 1MB L2 chache and the other 2,2 with 512 kb cache for the same price. I have seen no test directly comparing two of these so if anyone knows of any I'd very much appreciate a link. My first thought is that the 0,2 ghz will make more of a difference now than the extra 512 kb but what about future 64 bit OS and apps, will they be more sensitive to the L2 cache?

I use my computers mainly for gaming and also hosting gameservers, The new one I play one and the old one I use for hosting.

I also read the article on amd64 boards lacking in memory support, is this only when you use high timings, are you "forced" to use high timings because it won't work otherwise or what?

Any help and clarification will be greatly apreciated.

//Bobo

 

[Crashman]

I'd go with more cache and overclock the thing anyway.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[endyen]

The 3200+ with 512 l2 cache, is an xp3200+ that goes on socket 462/A. The 2 gig 3200+ is the A64 chip, and goes on a socket 754 board. You really want the A64- 3200+. Nforce3 250 boards are just starting to come out. ( Gigabyte has a decent one at newegg for about $133, called the GA-K8NS-PRO.) They are less memory fussy.
The old problem was that mem timings had to be set to slow, though with many boards, more aggressive timings could be used after burn-in.

 

[mightymightybobo]

Thanks for the replies, will find out what I need to do to overclock.
The one with the lower cache is not a regular XP, it's an amd64 for socket 754.
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2 GHz Socket 754, 512 KB cache, BOXED
ADA3200AXBOX
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz Socket 754, 1 MB cache, BOXED
ADA3200BOX

Will get a nforce3 250 then, you really eased my nervousness there thanks.
What's a burn in?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mightymightybobo on 05/17/04 08:36 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[justaguy]

Burn it just refers to breaking in the equipment. There are many programs that can do this, Prime95, SiSoft Sandra and more.

Athlon XP 1900 (11x200) 42C (Load w/AX-7 & 8cm Tornado) - MSI K7N2 Delta - Corsair Value PC3200 - Gainward GF3 @ 250/550 - 80Gb WD 8Mb Cache -

 

[TheRod]

I agree with CrashMan, get the one with 1Megs of CACHE and overclock it to 2.2GHz. It wil be easy with good DDR400/433. You will easily set your FSB to 220MHz and you probably don't need much Voltage tweaking and the retail fan/heatsink will be enough to cool the CPU.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!

 

[Coop]

I dont agree, 512 kb cache ore 1mb does not make that much.
And you can also overclock the 2200 MHz A64.


Toms Hardware Site is a joke !

 

[TheRod]

I understand your point. But this extra 512K of cache might impact the performance of Windows 64bit when it will be out. But we must wait to see.

But at this point, it's mostly personnal choice. I would personnaly get the 1Megs version, but I know that in some apps the 512K will beat the 1Megs because of the extra core speed in CACHE intensive apps the 1Megs version will win. They both have the same rating and it's for the obviosu reason that they are both performing at the same level, not enough difference to justify a 3100+ or 3300+.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!