does cache matter?

J

Johnboat

n00b
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
50
I'm looking at upgrading and I'm just wondering does 1 meg of cache really improve performance over 512k?
 
It actually depends on what you're doing. In general, bigger cache means faster performance.

EDIT: I know people will laugh at tom's hardware but you can check out their CPU charts.
 
It doesn't matter for AMD, like it does for Intel. The difference between 1mb and 2mb's are 3%. Compared to 10%/15% or so with intel. AMD's arc is not dependent on cache like Intels arc is.
 
cache does matter for both. But MORE for Intel. 1mb vs 512 helps a tad in games for AMD. I've tried and games loaded a TINY bit faster with 1mb. Is it worth paying a lot more? NO
 
Well taking overclocking out of the equation, whats faster out of the box, a Athlon 64 x2 4600 or a Opteron 175?
 
I want to upgrade from my 3200 but I don't want to buy a mobo or new ram and all.
 
I have seen so far that for a64, 1mb cache vs. 512k = about 200mhz.

What I mean is, a 2ghz 1mb cache per core = 2.2ghz 512k...

It might even be less then 200mhz... but that is about it.

The only other thing cache helps with is when you have large amounts of memory. If you have 2gb of ram or more, the 1mb cache vs. 512k is going to have a higher delta.

More cache also seems to help with multitasking, esp. when you are doing several things that take alot of memory.

One thing that makes the cache matter less is the fact that it is not shared between cores in dual core chips. Intel's shared L2 changes the game and makes more cache matter alot more in multicore.
 
what about my earlier question?

"Well taking overclocking out of the equation, whats faster out of the box, a Athlon 64 x2 4600 or a Opteron 175? "
 
Johnboat said:
what about my earlier question?

"Well taking overclocking out of the equation, whats faster out of the box, a Athlon 64 x2 4600 or a Opteron 175? "
Click to expand...

4600+ probably 80% of the time unless you're running a cache intensive app. Some programs respond better to more cache and some to more clockspeed. I'd say clockspeed > cache in "most" cases.
 
he gave you the answer :eek:

175 = 2.2ghz, 2x1mb cache
4600 = 2.4ghz, 2x512kb cache

if the adding 512kb cache per core is roughly equal 200mhz, then the two are about the same, but the extra mhz will most likely be more beneficial than the cache, so get the 4600 ;)

edit: was beat! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top