Is 512K of cache really that bad to 1MB of cache?

G

gotknoppix

New Member
Ok, I'm building my first AMD rig. I'm considering getting either an Athlon64 3500+ Venice, or an Athlon64 3700+ San Diego. (I'm on a budget of $200). The Venice has 512K of chace while the San Diego has 1MB of cache. Will this really make that much of a difference?, because the San Diego costs $30 more. Will the extra amount of cache help increase the AMD's multitaksing abilities??:confused: Alright, any info on this would be great. :cool:
 
The differance between 512 and 1mb if almost impossible to tell the differance by human standards- i think that San Diego cores are the same as FX-57's and i think that means they overclock pretty well!

Mankz
 
The differance between 512 and 1mb if almost impossible to tell the differance by human standards
Click to expand...
well i wouldn't say that it's impossible to see by human standards, but the difference is not that much as to be profound
 
Definately not much difference

No you really wont notice anything and if you do its not worth it really, in fact I have heard Intel has made mistakes by having CPU's with too large cache sizes and it actually slowed the communication process down some. This may not be correct but as I recall I read that in a magazine possibly Max PC (my favorite) but maybe not I don't remember.
 
well I'm going to go against the grain here and say that for $30, you might as well get the larger L2, you may not notice a huge difference but I still think it is the better option
 
suprasteve said:
well I'm going to go against the grain here and say that for $30, you might as well get the larger L2, you may not notice a huge difference but I still think it is the better option
Click to expand...
i agree with you.
 
I went from a 4200 to a Opteron 170 (which was a 512 to 1 mb jump per core) and i saw quite a difference actually. I saw about 3000 points in 3dmark01SE
 
Someone once told me (Cant remember who) that the L2 cache is like a truck yard.

So, the bigger the yard (The L2 cache) the longer it takes the trucks to cross it.... (The trucks being information)
 
helmie said:
Someone once told me (Cant remember who) that the L2 cache is like a truck yard.

So, the bigger the yard (The L2 cache) the longer it takes the trucks to cross it.... (The trucks being information)
Click to expand...
as the size increases so too does the latency. There is a law of diminishing returns past a certain point
 
Thankx for the replies. Because I plan on doing some good overclokcing :D , so by what some of you have been saying I think that i'll probably be going with the 3700+. :cool:
GotKnoppix
 
apj101 said:
as the size increases so too does the latency. There is a law of diminishing returns past a certain point
Click to expand...
that's very true, I was looking at the smithfields and preslers, and each core of the preslers has 2mb vs 1 mb of L2, but they also ran I believe 17% or 19% slower
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top