Cache or GHz? 2

[trumanzero]

I'm getting a new processor soon and I was just wondering which would be better:
AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 512K L2 cache
or
AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 cache
Am I correct in the assumption that I'll notice a lot more difference with the cache sizes than I will with the actual processor speeds? Actually, the operating frequency (according to Newegg) is 2.2 GHz for both. I might have just answered my own question, but I'll still throw it out incase their specs are off.

 

[Crowley16]

definitely the 1mb cache, it's doubling the on chip ram...

--------------------
Procrastinate Now!

 

[cdogg]

Pay attention to the other details like Core and Socket. Socket 939 is the newest of the bunch and is expected to have a much longer lifespan than the 754. It introduces the Hypertransport system along with Dual DDR memory which more than makes up for a smaller L2 cache.

Read this Tom's Hardware article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-02.html

(Be sure to flip to the next page to get more info)


Remember, more L2 cache does not always mean faster processor. Some types of instructions benefit from larger amounts of cache. But most day-to-day operations hardly make use of it. The jump from 128KB/256KB to 512KB does wonders. However, the jump from 512KB to 1MB isn't as significant as the additional features of the newer chipset.

In this case, you aren't comparing identical systems. The socket 939 has more features which speed up other bottlenecks making it faster than its socket 754 counterpart running at the same speed.

Go for the socket 939 interface...


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[ceh4702]

The way I buy computers the processor only lasts till I buy a new computer. So the Lifespan argument is moot. Normally by the time you upgrade the motherboard is outdated anyway.

This is my personal take on this issue.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[cdogg]

ceh4702,
With all due respect, that's not much of a "take" on the main issue! [LOL]

The point about "lifespan" hardly matters when you consider the features of 939 over 754. But even then, some people do like to have the ability to upgrade the CPU several levels up before having to switch out the mobo, CPU, and RAM.

So that recommendation is hardly an "argument" unless you make it one. It's just a generalized point that applies to some people.



~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[cdogg]

<footnote>
The main issues are features and speed
</footnote>

 

[paparazi]

trumanzero
Speaking from the standpoint as an owner of a new MSI K8 Neo2 Platinum 7025 socket 939 and an Athlon 3500, I had these exact same questions only a few weeks ago.
Basically a very close race but the Dual memory and Hyperstransport features do make up for the lesser 512 L2 cache.
You are correct, if you go for the 3400 you will end up with a machine almost identical in performance and which costs you £50 less to build.
Only thing is, it will be based on the older platform that has fewer features plus poorer upgrade and tweaking potential.
So your points:
SPEED: 3500 wins if only by the slimmest of margins
FEATURES: socket 939 with a 3500 does have a few more features and has to be more desireable all round.

Athlon64 3400 on a 754 platform is slighly cheaper and does stand shoulder to shoulder with the 3500/939 on performance, either would be a WIN/WIN in my book.
Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[trumanzero]

It seems that the socket 939 3500+ is the way to go then. I hadn't yet read anything about the difference between the socket types. The 3500+ is only two dollars MORE than the 3400+ at Newegg now. So definitely the 3500+. Thank you all.