Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
(cf)Eclipse said:yeah, and one thing to remember if you oc... you should be able to get your clawhammer up to 2.4ghz without much of a problem at all (all i had to do was bump up the voltage .05v..)
a 2.4ghz clawhammer will beat a 2.5ghz newcastle in just about everything
Shane said:To answer your question.... you ask whats the real world difference between 512mb and 1024mb cache...hmmm lets see hey its a difference of 512mb of cache.
I don't suppose it will become any less cache-dependant after I read it?heatsinker said:Here's some reading material. It's in French, but you can read numbers.
http://hardware.fr/articles/496/page10.html
Darth_Fluffy said:I don't suppose it will become any less cache-dependant after I read it?
Shane said:Wow Maxxo buddy your a genious... wait nm my Parrot does the same thing.
Yes, but Doom³ is a more elaborate Quake III engine. The core logic is almost the same. Either way, it was only an example. There are other games which write to cache, not just Quake III...heatsinker said:It's up to you if you want to base your processor selection decisions on an engine that's four years old. There's a reason why AMD chose to phase out the 1MB. I know for a fact I won't miss that extra 100FPS when the game's already hitting 300+.
Darth_Fluffy said:Yes, but Doom³ is a more elaborate Quake III engine. The core logic is almost the same. Either way, it was only an example. There are other games which write to cache, not just Quake III...
Yet again, there are games where the extra 512k makes a world of difference. So, what point am I missing?heatsinker said:Unfortunately, you're missing the point. There are plenty of games that write to cache, but the fact remains the same: difference between 512K and 1MB cache in gaming is slim to none. It's not completely useless, but should you pay more for it? Um, no.
Perhaps I'm seeing things the wrong way, but to me it seems as if the 2200 MHz Newcastle is outperforming the 2000 MHz Clawhammer in all the benchmarks.ShepsCrook said:The 1024kb cache does perform slightly better then the 512kb as seen in that review.
Esben said:Perhaps I'm seeing things the wrong way, but to me it seems as if the 2200 MHz Newcastle is outperforming the 2000 MHz Clawhammer in all the benchmarks.
Everyone says it's the other way around.
OldPueblo said:Even more important than cache in my opinion is the memory controller. The Newcastle memory controller is far more compatible/flexible, especially with multiple DIMMS. The ability to change between 1T and 2T is huge if you happen to get RAM thats cheap or add RAM later thats dramatically different in quality.