How much cache?
Would you rather have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ with 1 MB of cache or a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ with 2 MB of cache. The first choice is the less expensive one, but I can't decide. How much of a difference is there between the two?
Quote:Would you rather have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ with 1 MB of cache or a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ with 2 MB of cache. The first choice is the less expensive one, but I can't decide. How much of a difference is there between the two?
In MOST everyday computing tasks, the two would about even each other out, so you'd be best going with the cheaper 4400+.
However, if you plan on doing some overclocking... The 4400+ comes a whole 200MHz lower, which means that you're likely going to have about 200MHz worth of extra ceiling room; if you're overclocking it, you'll definitely want to go for the 4400+.
The cache is used by the CPU to decrease the average time it needs to access memory. Therefore, the more cache a processor has, the faster it can fetch memory locations and therefore finish more instructions...
However, whether the benefits it has in real time is all that important can be debatable at times. I was reading an article of how someone underclocked the X6800 to a E6400 speed and tried to see if there was a benefit to a bigger L2 cache. There was some benefit, but at most was around 5% or so. Also, more cache usually means more power, since thats what takes up a large amount of transistors on the chip. If you need the utmost in performance, more cache is always better. But 1mb is enough for most purposes these days anyways. If you can save 20 bucks or so, then save it. You probably won't notice a major difference anyways.