Which is better, cache or clockspeed?

[over_c]

I have been looking at the prices for the upcoming E3 and E4 (venice and san diego) cores for the AMD64 CPUs on <A HREF="http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=M&Category_Code=NA_2" target="_new">monarchcomputer</A> and it appears that the 1 MB cache cores (san diego, E4) are close in price to the 512kB cache cores (venice, E3) with 200 MHz more clocks.

So, which is better? 200 MHz more speed or twice as much cache?

Example: Which would you prefer, the Venice 3800+ (2.4 GHz, 512Kb cache) for $379 or the San Diego 3700+ (2.2 GHz, 1 MB cache) for $334? Please be as detailed in your reasoning as possible.

 

[endyen]

Will you be OCing? The extra cache wont make up for the 200mhz clock difference, but it does help spread the heat around. Generally more cache means more OC in the A64 platform.

 

[over_c]

I do intend on trying to OC my next build.

How does more cache spread heat around better? The die is the same size.

Also, my PC is primarily a gaming system.

 

[endyen]

I'll take a guess. The cache may have more internal wiring, more grounded conductors, and gets less use than the rest of the transistors.