benefit of more cache with Amd

[Chewy]

Im currently wondering about the difference the extra cache on an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200 2.6GHZ 2000FSB 2X1MB would make compared to an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4850E 2x512MB performance-wise.

 

[OzzmanFloyd120]

Personally I've never noticed any performance difference between two chips at the same MHZ with a different cache. (dual-core at least)
On the other hand the single core chips I've had I've noticed a small increase in speed (probably because the chip needs to pool more strings before they can be processed and the other 512k gets used more on the single cores)
I hope that helped some.

 

[Error 404]

Generally, more cache doesnt' mean improved performance for games, but apparently it makes office/internet apps run a bit faster. Also, with more L2 cache, it probably means you've bought a better chip...

 

[JC316]

Generally, more cache doesnt' mean improved performance for games, but apparently it makes office/internet apps run a bit faster. Also, with more L2 cache, it probably means you've bought a better chip...

With Intel it certainly does. I am currently using an E1200 with only 512K of cache and it's SLOW compared to my old E4300.

 

[candle_86]

yea 512k on an 800mhz bus = ouch

 

[Darknova]

With Intel it certainly does. I am currently using an E1200 with only 512K of cache and it's SLOW compared to my old E4300.

Yeah but that's because your chip is still using the "old-style" FSB, instead of a point to point link like AMD. AMD systems just don't need HUGE amounts of cache, saying that though, I'd still go for the one with more as long as you're not paying a huge price premium.

 

[candle_86]

as they say more is better, unless its a 20 dollar graphics card with a gb of ram

 

[Pinchy]

Well both chips are virtually the same price....its just the 4850e has the lower wattage.

 

[JRMBelgium]

Overclock a CPU with less cache 100-200Mhz ( pretty easy, such a small OC ) and voila, just as fast.

 

[Chewy]

^^ makes sense, I think we might go with the amd x3 8450 2.1Ghz. I doubt well be overclocking this computer though, right now since Im overclocking my new usb hub does not let me boot up when its plugged in. I dont want them to have an issue like this for than I will prob have to go fix it lol.

the chip I "was" looking at is in stock AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Dual Core Processor AM2 2.7GHZ 2X512KB 65W 65NM, I "was" considering this one or the 4850e 2.5Ghz though the phenom x3 will par much better with the 780G board so its worth while spending the extra bit of money I think.

 

[ktr]

There was an article some time ago where it benched AMD cpu with same clock speeds but different cache sizes, and the speed difference was more or less nothing. But the same result was not reproduced by Intel cpu's, where more cache did make a noted difference.

 

[Deleted member 3]

Personally I've never noticed any performance difference between two chips at the same MHZ with a different cache. (dual-core at least)
On the other hand the single core chips I've had I've noticed a small increase in speed (probably because the chip needs to pool more strings before they can be processed and the other 512k gets used more on the single cores)
I hope that helped some.

Actually more cache per core on SMP systems has quite a positive effect. It reduces bottlenecks caused by the bus. For instance, Intel loads Xeon MP's with cache for this reason. The more that can be stored in the cache, the less the bus has to be cluttered. Of course, adding more and more gets less effective.

 

[From_Nowhere]

The performance is noticeable, but nothing to make the Athlon 5200+ a must buy. I've owned an Athlon X2 3800 -clocked to 2.5GHz, and a 5200+ stock just barely outperformed it.

 

[Wile E]

It took about an extra 100Mhz from my 2x512 AMD's to match my 2x1MB AMDs. That's on average tho. Some things didn't see any improvement from the extra cache, while other things did.