2.2GHz 512k vs 2.0GHz 1MB

[scorPs]

G'day,

Currently teeing up options for a pure gaming machine...

Im buying a Athlon 64 3200+ but starting to hear confusion about the 2.2GHz 512k cache being a better performer than the 2.0GHz 1MB cache, the chip will be running on an MSI K8N Neo Platnum....

Can anyone PLEASE provide me with some solid proof on which chip runs faster with games? I cannot find a comparison between the 2 chips.

Thankyou
Regards from down-under

Paul

 

[Crashman]

Look around at the main sites, Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, etc. They have similar performance, hence the similar name. Most people here would rather have the 2GHz 1MB version because it overclocks so nicely.

<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>

 

[Spitfire_x86]

2.2 GHz 512k is better. Athlon64 gains very little performance from extra cache, but it's performance scales very well with clockspeed.

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

 

[endyen]

The a64s today top out at 2.4 to 2.6 gigs. The clawhammer stays a little cooler because of the extra cache. They also perform a little better because of the higher fsb.
It is easier to make up for speed difference than to add more cache.
There are a few progs that love extra cache, and perform way better, but most only perform about 10% better. There are also progs that dont perform any better at all.