Cache or Processor? which ones more important

-mogwai · Post by **-mogwai** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:59 pm

i recommend a pentium m over EVERY pentium 4.

Joalaielna · Post by **Joalaielna** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:05 pm

Megahurtz are becoming more and more important with games today. Take bf2 for example, They are saying that the you could put 2 7800gtx's in SLI everything maxed 2048x1716 (orwhater) and it is still cpu limited and they need those faster cpu's. more power.

shwA · Post by **shwA** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:02 am

NAiLs, that looks identical to mine, except I have the 3.2 version of that running in my laptop.

gvblake22 · Post by **gvblake22** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:39 pm

Joalaielna wrote:Megahurtz are becoming more and more important with games today. Take bf2 for example, They are saying that the you could put 2 7800gtx's in SLI everything maxed 2048x1716 (orwhater) and it is still cpu limited and they need those faster cpu's. more power.

What do you mean by it is still CPU limited? With two 7800GTX's in SLI, all but the most recent/powerful CPU's will probably be a bottleneck. Don't get sucked into the "Megahurtz Myth"!!

A 2.2Ghz processor outperforming a 3.2Ghz processor is not uncommon...

As for the topic of the original thread, I cannot really offer any assistance as to if more Cache makes a difference because I have never owned a CPU with more or less than 512k L2 cache

But AMD just adds 200mhz on to the lower PR'd chips to make them the same "PR" as one with 200 less mhz and the 1mb cache.
It is all gonna greatly depend on the CPU's architechture and the tasks it it running whether more Cache is gonna help or not. As far as K8's go, AMD seems to think that having a 1mb L2 cache is worth sacrificing 200mhz and still being able to perform the same as a 512k L2 cache chip running 200mhz faster than the 1mb cache compeditor.

A good way to see the differences more Cache will do, you could read some reaviews on the newer 6xx series of cpu's with 2mb L2 cache from intel that are benchmarked against the 5xx series with 1mb L2 cache. Or compare the Newcastle with the Clawhammer cores or the Venice to the San Diego cores from AMD.

killswitch83 · Post by **killswitch83** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:15 pm

gvblake22 wrote: What do you mean by it is still CPU limited? With two 7800GTX's in SLI, all but the most recent/powerful CPU's will probably be a bottleneck. Don't get sucked into the "Megahurtz Myth"!!
A 2.2Ghz processor outperforming a 3.2Ghz processor is not uncommon...

As for the topic of the original thread, I cannot really offer any assistance as to if more Cache makes a difference because I have never owned a CPU with more or less than 512k L2 cache
But AMD just adds 200mhz on to the lower PR'd chips to make them the same "PR" as one with 200 less mhz and the 1mb cache.
It is all gonna greatly depend on the CPU's architechture and the tasks it it running whether more Cache is gonna help or not. As far as K8's go, AMD seems to think that having a 1mb L2 cache is worth sacrificing 200mhz and still being able to perform the same as a 512k L2 cache chip running 200mhz faster than the 1mb cache compeditor.

A good way to see the differences more Cache will do, you could read some reaviews on the newer 6xx series of cpu's with 2mb L2 cache from intel that are benchmarked against the 5xx series with 1mb L2 cache. Or compare the Newcastle with the Clawhammer cores or the Venice to the San Diego cores from AMD.

Gotta go with ya on this one gvblake; you'd be amazed what large amounts of cache can do with a lower frequency processor....Personally though, I like my cake and ice cream and to eat it too, so I guess I'm gonna get a lower freq. Clawhammer and experiment with OC'ing with that chip

gvblake22 · Post by **gvblake22** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:31 pm

Good call. Those Clawhammers are pretty sweet when you can OC them, you prettymuch have a lower clocked Athlon 64-FX (just no unlocked multipliers).
You should check out the DTR clawhammers. You can pair one with a DFI s754 NF3 motherboard and some good RAM and get some nice clocks (given you have a heatsink that will work on the DTR's because there is no IHS). If you are looking to go witha 1mb cache chip on s939, you might as well go with a San Diego core as they have improved memory controllers, are 90nm so they will run cooler, have SSE3 instruction set, and are made with the Strained Silicon SOI (which should yield higher clocks). But a San Diego and s939 will be more expensive than a DTR clawhammer on s754.

It's all up to you, but you should let us know what you end up getting and how it goes!

killswitch83 · Post by **killswitch83** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:46 pm

Haven't heard of the DTR Clawhammers (I'm assuming it's the s754 version instead of the s939), will have to check that one out. As far as the Strained Silicone process is concerned, isn't that what's used on the Prescott P4's? Because I've heard the Prescott has had some problems with OC'ing, but maybe AMD has this process down a lot better than Intel; however, I am going for the 90nm core for better cooling (plus they're easier in concerns to AS5 application; the Barton core XP unit I built for a buddy ended up being a little bit of a pain when it came to putting paste on, but I finally got it down. I got lucky and the same guy gave me an XP 1600+ CPU, in addition to my service fee, because he really liked the system I built for him (of course he really liked the price too, as he didn't have much of a budget to work with). I do believe I can withstand the cost of a San Diego core, just gonna have to save more back, that's all

gvblake22 · Post by **gvblake22** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:05 pm

DTR = Desktop Replacement
It's not really technically a "mobile" CPU, but it isn't a regular desktop chip, somewhere in between

I'm not sure if the prescotts are build on a Strained Silicon Process, but that's what AMD has been making thier FX line out of for a while, it just started to appear on the new Rev. E chips now. As far as the Prescotts having overclocking difficulties, I think it is just mainly due to heat. The new 6xx series and the 5xxJ chips have been hitting 4Ghs pretty consistantly given you have sufficient cooling, so I'd say they overclock pretty well.

Those San Diego's are AWESOME chips, I'm sure you will be happy!

killswitch83 · Post by **killswitch83** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:10 pm

Sweeet, guess I'll tack on a Zalman CNPS7700-Cu HSF to go with it. Thanks for the link to the thread, it was extremely helpful