• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

1mb v. 512

M

masshole

[H]ard|Gawd
2FA
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
1,513
I know Ive seen this posted before, but was wondering if it would be worth spending the extra cash. Im upgrading from a P4 2.4ghz and was was looking at the following:

AMD X2 4000 ($415)

AMD X2 4600 ($269)

Obviously the 4600 has the 512 L2 cache with the other 1mb. Is that worth the extra $150 in performance increase?

and no, I more then likely wont be OCing....
 
the 4600+ is a lot faster at stock. 2ghz with 2x1mb vs 2.4ghz with 2x512kb...

;)
 
masshole said:
I know Ive seen this posted before, but was wondering if it would be worth spending the extra cash. Im upgrading from a P4 2.4ghz and was was looking at the following:

AMD X2 4000 ($415)

AMD X2 4600 ($269)

Obviously the 4600 has the 512 L2 cache with the other 1mb. Is that worth the extra $150 in performance increase?

and no, I more then likely wont be OCing....
Click to expand...
the prices are being dropped on the 1mb X2 parts too.http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/2218_large_2x1mb_pricing_802.png DONT pay $415 for that thing.

i cant believe you are are even asking if the 4000 would be faster than the 4600. on the cpus with equal speed, 4600 and 4800 for example, the extra cache does help some. there are very few situations that the extra cache could make up for the next 200mhz faster though. in other words a 5000(2.6 512 L2) would be beat a 4800(2.4 1M L2) in 99% of benchmarks.
 
freeloader1969 said:
Grab the 4600+.
Click to expand...
I don't know what website the OP is looking at but you can get a 4400+ 1MB 89Watt for $230 from Zip Zoom Fly The 4600+ is $249 all with free shipping.
 
tesfaye said:
I don't know what website the OP is looking at but you can get a 4400+ 1MB 89Watt for $230 from Zip Zoom Fly The 4600+ is $249 all with free shipping.
Click to expand...
Probably his local computer store.. I know the place by me wants ungodly amounts of money for x2 processors... and they don't even have them in stock.
 
Been years since I've purchase ANYTHING for the inside of my PC from a local shop! BTW, can anyone point me towards that really cool overclocking database which lists all the chips, steppings etc and their overclocks along with cooling methods? I can't find it.
 
I just purchased an am2 x2 4000 at zipzoom for 198.00. It will be here tomorrow. I was shocked when I saw the price of the same cpu at newegg for 415.00. :eek:
 
jstarter98 said:
I just purchased an am2 x2 4000 at zipzoom for 198.00. It will be here tomorrow. I was shocked when I saw the price of the same cpu at newegg for 415.00. :eek:
Click to expand...


hmm... maybe I should be looking at zzf for my pc parts.
 
I've heard that going from 512kb of Cache to 1mb of cache gives you about a 4% boost in most areas... like encoding. As for games, you'll notice maybe 1fps... Divx encoding had a 10% boost from the extra cache, so... if you encode with Divx it MIGHT be worth it.

Always remember that a 512kb processor will be faster than a 1mb processor, if you overclock it a little bit ;). Save the cash and get a better GPU or RAM and super clock the bastard.
 
I'm eyeing up a 4600 myself, I'm just not conviced the extra cache will help me in gaming performance.
 
clickclickw00t said:
it wont, but you'll have a bigger e-penis
Click to expand...

Where will that get you in life, other then having disgruntled tendencies? :p

Im going to stick with the 4600. Itll be a nice improvement from my 2.4, which seems waaaaay outdated these days anyway....
 
masshole said:
Where will that get you in life, other then having disgruntled tendencies? :p

Im going to stick with the 4600. Itll be a nice improvement from my 2.4, which seems waaaaay outdated these days anyway....
Click to expand...
i would get the 4600 too unless you can find a 4800 for just a little more. the extra cache does help some. in some benchmarks the 4800 beat the 5000. so that extra cache can actually sometimes do better than a 200mhz speed. again if you cant find the 4800 for a good price than just get the 4600.
 
Funny how AMD played up their L2 cache as a must have feature not too long ago...now they're trying to tell us it doesn't matter. :rolleyes: Even so...I grabbed a X2 4400+ because I would rather have more cache than to not have it. :D
 
well, part of it is that AM2 with 512kb cache and good ram will beat out 939 with 1mb cache and good ram. faster ram lowers cache dependance. :D
 
All I know is my new 4400+ has a shitty second core. Prime95 runs fine on the first core @ 2.7GHZ 1.4v but the second one fails within a couple of minutes running anything over 2.4GHZ

ADV4400DAA6CD
CCBWE 0604MPM
4475788860975
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
well, part of it is that AM2 with 512kb cache and good ram will beat out 939 with 1mb cache and good ram. faster ram lowers cache dependance. :D
Click to expand...

AM2 is only marginally faster a the same speed and cache size and you will only see that small difference in synthetic benchmarks which mean feck all. Don't misslead people.
 
freeloader1969 said:
I suggest you rethink what Eclipse has said.
Click to expand...

What, the part about good ram? that works for both 939 and 940. Actually in reviews i've seen an FX60 outperforms the 5000+ AM2 in some benchmarks (not all). So the extra cache does make a difference unless the tighter timings of the DDR memory still holds a slight advantage but I doubt it.

The difference between the two is very small, given the price drops of the 939 X2's id still recommend people to buy them if they already have half decent memory and the compatible motherboard. Especially the 4400+ and 4800+.
 
Shocky said:
The difference between the two is very small, given the price drops of the 939 X2's id still recommend people to buy them if they already have half decent memory and the compatible motherboard. Especially the 4400+ and 4800+.
Click to expand...

Imagine all the money people would save if they didn't have to constantly upgrade this pc?
 
^^ Mhm.... True, but then if I wasn't addicted to computers, I'd get hooked on heroin... Or something equally addictive as computers...
 
Arcygenical said:
^^ Mhm.... True, but then if I wasn't addicted to computers, I'd get hooked on heroin... Or something equally addictive as computers...
Click to expand...

Yea imagine spending 200+ a day on a habit. Glad computers arent that addicting.
 
masshole said:
Yea imagine spending 200+ a day on a habit. Glad computers arent that addicting.
Click to expand...
I wish I could afford that kind of heroin addiction....I would quit cold turkey and spend the money buying the latest computer goodies. :D
 
I bought a 4200+ about three days ago but then I was like f*ck it let me just get the 4400+. I did so because I could only get 2475MHz @ 225 x 11 out of my 4200+, and that wasn't even too stable. I figured that with the 4400+ I should do better since it is an E6, 4200+ is an E4. Plus I get the extra cache. I want to take advantage of my DDR500 ram.

Do you think I can run 250 x 11 or at least 250 x 10 with the 4400+?
 
da killa said:
I bought a 4200+ about three days ago but then I was like f*ck it let me just get the 4400+. I did so because I could only get 2475MHz @ 225 x 11 out of my 4200+, and that wasn't even too stable. I figured that with the 4400+ I should do better since it is an E6, 4200+ is an E4. Plus I get the extra cache. I want to take advantage of my DDR500 ram.

Do you think I can run 250 x 11 or at least 250 x 10 with the 4400+?
Click to expand...
250x11 - 4x HTT is exactly what I have mine running at just under 1.5v.
 
joemama said:
250x11 - 4x HTT is exactly what I have mine running at just under 1.5v.
Click to expand...

Cool, that is good news. I hope I am able to run mine like that. What kind of cooling you have? I have an Artic Freezer 64 which worked great with my Opty.
 
joemama said:
250x11 - 4x HTT is exactly what I have mine running at just under 1.5v.
Click to expand...
joemama, how the FUCK did you pull that off? I can only get to 240x11 @ 1.525v. Do I just need to burn it in?
 
HighwayAssassins said:
joemama, how the FUCK did you pull that off? I can only get to 240x11 @ 1.525v. Do I just need to burn it in?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking. I can OC one of the cores stable at 2.7GHZ 1.45 but the second core craps out. Right now I have it at 2.4 GHZ Prime stable on both cores at 1.4v for about 18 hours now. Still running while I type. I'm not totally dissapointed because I didn't buy it for the OC but I want to try and get the most out of it. Im going to try feeding this thing 1.5 or 1.525v and see if that might help. I have to install a temp monitoring program before I try 1.5. I don't want my temps going crazy. I used to be able to adjust voltages using ClockGen but since installing this chip it doesn't allow me to. Any suggestions for a utility that will do the HHT adjustments along with Voltage which also has command line abilities?
 
Get the 512kb part and overclock it. Use the money saved on something else, like your video card or more system memory. 3-5% performance increase isn't worth the premium for the 1mb part.
 
HighwayAssassins said:
joemama, how the FUCK did you pull that off? I can only get to 240x11 @ 1.525v. Do I just need to burn it in?
Click to expand...
Sorry, just checked and my v-core is also @1.525.....I meant to lower it a little and never did. :eek: I believe I have two very good cores.....when I first got it and swapped it for my Opty 148 I forgot to clear the cmos (and my Opteron oc settings) and it fired right up and ran perfectly @2.5.

edit- idles @37-40c with a Freezer 64pro and Zalman STG-1 thermal paste (or 'polish' :p )
 
Can't remember where I read it, but there was a big article on overclocking cpus with various cache sizes. The general conclusion was that you may expect to overclock the smaller cache cpus higher than bigger cache ones because the reduced chip complexity means there is less to go wrong when overclocking. It's statistically less likely for you to have a bad 512k cache than a 1024k cache because the smaller cache has fewer transistors.

That said, sometimes you just get stuck with a dog no matter how much research you do.
 
Shocky said:
AM2 is only marginally faster a the same speed and cache size and you will only see that small difference in synthetic benchmarks which mean feck all. Don't misslead people.
Click to expand...
sorry if i implied it was a large difference. the move to ddr2 = ~2-5%, drop from 1mb to 512kb = ~2-4%.. so we have a 0-1% gain! :D:D
 
Am I the only one who thought from the thread title that the subject was some kind of reminiscing over when memory came in lots of four sticks, all of which were needed for the bank? (Comparing a 512MB DIMM to 4x256KB, I mean.)

As for cache -- if your programs need to go to main memory often, as opposed to crunching the same set of data all the time, then cache doesn't do as much good. From memory, AMD's architectures are far less cache-dependant than Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top