AMD 64x2 - 2MB L2 cache vs. 1MB L2 cache?

Hi, i'm thinking about upgrading my processor but i'm not sure which of the two is better;

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400+ / 2.2 GHz- L2 1MB + 1MB
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4600+ / 2.4 GHz - L2 512KB + 512KB

they are both roughly the same price ($280 Canadian moneys) but i don't know which is more useful, the 1mb worth of extra L2 cache or the 200mhz of core clock on the 4600+

I'm guessing the one with more cache, because I can always clock the core by atleast 200mhz (right now i'm running an XP 3000+ rated at 1.8ghz at 2.35ghz) Should I expect any issues overclocking the 4600+ because of all the extra cache around the core? I remember reading that the ones with more cache are harder to overclock.

the main use would be for rendering videos in programs like Adobe Premiere, Virtual Dub etc... and also for Supreme Commander, the beta is chugging really hard with a 3 player skirmish game.

thanks in advanced
9 answers Last reply
More about 64x2 cache cache
  1. eitherone will work fine. it is up to you. :D

    i have an x2 4400 oc,ed to fx60 speeds @2611mhz
    it is stable and runs at the same temps. as stock.
    not sure about the x2 4600.
  2. if you have the option to, definetly go for the 4400+ over the 4600+... you can attain the 200MHz no problem by OCing (putting it on par with the 4800+), but you have no way of getting the extra cache if you needed it then (if you instead chose the 4600+)...

    the performance benefit of the extra cache is only really in certain applications though, and some applications dont benefit really at all from it TBH

    either way though, definetly go for the 4400+... you certainly wont incur a performance penalty either way by choosing it, lol
  3. they are both good processors that can be overclocked. i have mine (4600)running at 2640 right now and i haven't even done anything other than speeding up the fsb to 220.i think if i play with voltage and stuff it will go higher i just haven't had time to
  4. and on a side note,,, I have my Opteron 175 running at 2640 using 4 stiks of CorsairXMS at 240MHz...
  5. hey i noticed you have a 3800+ dual-core, and i've found this to be 70-80 bucks cheaper than the 4400, 4600 i've listed.

    i've also read that the 3800+ x2 has a winchester core (as opposed to toledo and makes 80w vs. toledo 100w heat) is this easier to overclock, i.e. could you recommend this?
  6. well, it has a manchester core... for the price/performance ratio, definetly... the peak OC ive managed to push it to before it wouldnt even boot, was 2.73GHz... on stock cooling no less... but, being as it was on stock cooling (and poor ventilation as well), it would overheat VERY easily when i would try and push it...

    so, yes... at 2.73, that put it at nearly an FX-62, at any rate... but, a decent aftermarket cooler is definetly necessary then, to keep it running acceptably cool...

    as far as OCing potential also... you know every cpu is different, so yours might OC to 2.85+... and then again it might only OC to <2.65... another thing is motherboard quality, and memory quality, those can have a significant impact on OCing potential too... a completely stable OC however, will probably be somewhat lower than your peak OC...

    hope this helps... as far as mine currently, lately ive just usually run it at stock speed (2.0GHz), undervolted as well to 1.125V from the stock 1.4V, so, i went more the opposite direction, lol... keeps the temperatures down even under load... so, idle temperature and load temperature are almost identical then, within a few degrees either way (basically CnQ temperatures, at stock performance)... so not as many fans are necessary to have on, which keeps noise levels down as well...

    its certainly fast enough at stock speed for what i usually do; browsing online, occasional gaming, some encoding, a decent amount of multitasking, and a lot of system tweaking... and it puts a relatives s462 3000+ sempron (and my previous s462 2600+ sempron), well... i wont say to shame, cuz thats just mean (as theyre the ones that purchased the X2 for me late last year)... but theres a great deal of difference in how they perform... and how smooth the system feels as far as being responsive... ...such as, you can completely max out both cores 100%, and still have a suprisingly responsive system, for doing general stuff, and gaming even, even still...

    also, not sure if you know... but, be sure to grab AMDs dual core drivers, and dual core optimizer off of their site... helps a great with overall performance (as windows doesnt include the necessary drivers by default)... their dashboard demo is a nice utility to have too (if they still have it up), it keeps track of core usage, voltage level, and temperature
  7. Scine you list some business programs, I'd suggest the 4400+. The extra cache seems to help more with such programs then with gaming. As to overclocking, I run 2640 mhz on my 4400+ and have gotten 2750 on air, though I normally leave it at 2640. I did push to 2860 a couple times, but couldn't hold stability. Probably could with some fine tuning. In any case, the 4400+ will do a good job.
  8. go for the full 2 mb of cache because for the tasks you want to do it will make a slight difference. And add the other 200Mhz with oveclokinng and give it 6 hours of dual prime 95 and youre set to go
  9. Quote:
    go for the full 2 mb of cache because for the tasks you want to do it will make a slight difference. And add the other 200Mhz with oveclokinng and give it 6 hours of dual prime 95 and youre set to go

    Think you got the wrong guy in your response.
Ask a new question

Read More

AMD Cache Dual Core Overclocking