Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > DualCore AMD - Is it worth going for 2mb cache?

DualCore AMD - Is it worth going for 2mb cache?

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - DualCore AMD - Is it worth going for 2mb cache?

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
Temjin   04-23-2006 at 08:03:51 PM

Hi,

I wonder if someone would like to offer their opinion over is a 2mb cache CPU going to perform noticeably better than a 1mb variant. The CPU's in question are the :

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Socket 939 , Manchester Core, 2x 2.0GHz , 1MB Cache, Retail

and:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Socket 939 , Toledo Core, 2x 2.2GHz , 2MB Cache, Retail

Using the CPU benchmark chart on the site yields results which to me might simply be attributed to the .2ghz difference and as such it’s hard to see any particular advantage.

Does having 2mb cache really provide any noticeable increase in performance?

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
TechnologyCoordinator   04-23-2006 at 08:08:32 PM
- 0 +

It depends on what you are doing, but as a general rule, at these amounts, it will make a difference.

MadModMike will tell you that at a certain point that cache size will start to slow you down, but we are not yet at the point yet. Remember that RAM is slow compared to the cache of a processor.

You can always overclock, but you cannot add cache. . .

Reply to TechnologyCoordinator
ltcommander_data   04-23-2006 at 08:09:06 PM
- 0 +

In general, clock speed gives a more reliable overall performance increase in all applications while more cache only gives a performance increase in some applications. Performance-wise, between the clock speed increase and the extra cache the X2 4400+ is definitely better unless you are overclocking. If you are overclocking, the 1xx Opterons are a great option because they all come with 2x1MB of cache and having great clocking room.

Reply to ltcommander_data
SidVicious   04-23-2006 at 08:14:21 PM
- 0 +

First off, you got the amount of cache wrong, Manchesters (X2 3800+) have 512KB per core and Toledoes (X2 4400+) have 1MB per core.

The performance boost from cache is situational, it depend on how a particular application make use of the cache, some won't show any benefits.

Reply to SidVicious
strangestranger   04-23-2006 at 08:27:50 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

First off, you got the amount of cache wrong, Manchesters (X2 3800+) have 512KB per core and Toledoes (X2 4400+) have 1MB per core



same difference and you know whathe mean't. i think you should've given him the benefit of the doubt over what he mean't.

Reply to strangestranger
SidVicious   04-23-2006 at 08:38:22 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

First off, you got the amount of cache wrong, Manchesters (X2 3800+) have 512KB per core and Toledoes (X2 4400+) have 1MB per core



same difference and you know whathe mean't. i think you should've given him the benefit of the doubt over what he mean't.

If let rampant, marketoid maths result in grossly inflated figures that no longer relate to the real world ie. 840EE does'nt run at 12.8GHz (3.2GHz X4 because of dual cores and HT like I've heard some idiots say). I'm simply setting the facts straight to nip it in the bud.

Reply to SidVicious
Temjin   04-23-2006 at 08:45:03 PM
- 0 +

To be honest that’s fair enough, however even given the error of specific numeric there is still a difference in terms of cache between the two. You say any noticeable increase would be situational, so let me ask you if for example we are running a game like Oblivion / Half-life 2 (both which use in-game physics) would you imagine there to be much difference between the two?

Thanks,

- Tem

EDIT: I'm thinking otherwise the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Socket 939 , Manchester Core, 2x 2.2GHz , 1MB Cache, Retail will be a good compromise offering the same clockspeed.

Reply to Temjin
K8MAN   04-23-2006 at 11:14:43 PM
- 0 +

You probably wont notice much of a difference. L2 is more important on single cores than it is to DC because the more L2 the better you can multitask but with dual core you have another entire core to pick up where core 0 would otherwise stutter between tasks.

Reply to K8MAN
Temjin   04-24-2006 at 12:54:44 AM
- 0 +

Thanks, for the time being I've opted to go for the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Socket 939 , Manchester Core, 2x 2.2GHz.

Thanks,

- Tem

Reply to Temjin
spud   04-24-2006 at 02:43:11 AM
- 0 +

Quote :

It depends on what you are doing, but as a general rule, at these amounts, it will make a difference.

MadModMike will tell you that at a certain point that cache size will start to slow you down, but we are not yet at the point yet. Remember that RAM is slow compared to the cache of a processor.

You can always overclock, but you cannot add cache. . .



Yes and MMM is also notoriously wrong and has been shown on several occasions to be just that. I wouldn't want to associate with the fellow in regards to what he thinks he knows, because as many of us have shown and seen his comments are white smoke given enough time you can see right through.

Now don’t get me wrong I'm not saying he’s wrong just he doesn’t know what he’s talking about 90% of the time.

Reply to spud
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > DualCore AMD - Is it worth going for 2mb cache?
Go to:

There are 917 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.287 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?