I have read here somewhere about the diferences between the AMD Athlon 64 3400 with 1mb cach and the one with 512k, but I can't find it and don't clearly remember what it said.
A sales person at the store told me the Athlon 64 3400 used to all be 1mb, but due to overheating problems they were changing it down to 512k. I found this doubtful but then I don't realy know. Is it one has a faster speed and the other slower but has larger cach?
My question is; what is the differance and between these two, thier benefits and which one is recommended?
I am building a new system with this CPU, mainly because it's lightyears ahead of what I have now (pentium II 400) and it's more than adequate for my needs, plus and the CPU's for the 939 mobo's are to pricy and I don't plan on waiting that long to put this together.
The computer will be mainly for home office use and internet, with some 3D gaming. This is what I have in mind.
Most of these were chosen from different reviews and from reading the reccomendations on this forum.
AMD Athlon 64 3400+
MSI K8N Neo Platinum (nForce3 250Gb)
512MB OCZ PC3200 memory
128MB Sapphire Radeon 9600 or 9800 Pro Video Card
Seagate 120GB Barracuda 7200 sata Hard Drive
Although there were earlier “Claw Hammer” Athlon 64 cores that had half of the 1mb cache disabled, most of the new Athlon 64 cores are “Newcastle” cores. It’s a core revision that has a smaller die and improved compatibility with memories. The core size went from 193mm2 to 144mm2 (a 43 % savings). For the most part the 2.4ghz Newcastle 3400+ with 512k cache will out perform the 2.2ghz ClawHammer with 1mb cache.
What bothers me the most, is the lame excuse the sales person gave. In point of fact, the larger die size of 1mb cache will make it cooler, and the extra speed of the 512 cache version, will make it hotter.
Anything that perpetuates the myth that Amd has a heat problem, is a very bad lie. Find a retailer that knows what he is talking about.
Personnally I would not recommend the A64 3400+ as the price/perf ratio just isn't there. Get an a64 3200+, and, if you game, add the difference to graphics card or ram.
The more on die cache, the better the CPU will be.
Not true. a p4 northwood at 3ghz is faster than a prescot at 3ghz and the prescot has double the cache. More cache just allows the processor to prefetch more. Prescot needs the extra cache to make up for the longer pipes. This has been told to you many many times. Why are you so ignorant to ignore the facts?
939 is newer so it will be safer to go with 939 mobos imo.
Because it's newer it's a better buy?
So it's better to buy a s775 board/processor becuase they are newer even though they are much more expensive but offer little to no performance boost over s478 boards/processors?
Your logic is bad.
Watch out for the <b><font color=red>bloody</font color=red></b> Fanboys!