4400+ vs 4200+

[TraumaRN]

I've been reading these forums for a good while and been reading Anand, for a good year and I've noticed that L2 cache really doesnt count for much, and thats where my question comes from, I'm looking to buy a dual core athlon system, and while I know that it's not a cheap option I do have enough money at least for a 4400 or 4200, now I'm gonna halfway answer my own question, but would I be better off buying a 4200 with it's 512 of L2 and OCing to just 2.6 and essentially have the performance of a 4800?? Or should I get a 4400 (with 1mb of L2) and OC to 2.6.....I mean the 4400 wont be *that* much faster would it??

And a side question....what mobo should I get for ease of use and best OC ability?(counting in good RAM)

 

[fatty4ksu]

Get 4400+


I'm going w/4200+, but that's because I'm on a tight budget.

 

[fatty4ksu]

Get 4400+


I'm going w/4200+, but that's because I'm on a tight budget.

 

[Sentential]

What's the price difference? 512kb of addition cache generally accounts to a 150~250mhz lead over the lesser core. It helps alot more than people think it does. If you can afford it and its not THAT much of a price premium, Id go for it.

 

[imported_Technomancer]

Actually, the issue with L2 cache is not that it doesn't provide performance improvements per se, but rather that it provides diminishing returns until there comes a point where adding more causes more trouble than it's worth. Case in point: Intel's current designs with 2 MB L2 cache. I have no idea how they're handling calls to RAM, but there were one or two cases where there was a slight (less than 1%) decrease in performance in a certain few applications. This leads me to think they fill the whole L2 cache every memory call, but I could be wrong. The upgrade from 512 KB to a MB DID have improvements for both AMD and Intel on the order of around 7% or so, on average.

 

[sbuckler]

More L2 cache should matter more for dual processors, and future games. In the past the core of the game you were running would fit quite well into a 512kb cache so no massive benefit in larger cache. However in the future as games get more complex a larger cache will start to make more of a difference. Equally for a dual core running two threads you need more cache because threads are not bound to a processor so will keep swapping between the two of them. Effectively that means each cache for each cpu has to store useful stuff on both threads which takes twice the cache. Finally you now have twice the processors but still the same memory bandwidth so when information can't be found in the cache it will have a harder time getting the info from main memory as it's got to compete with the other processor.

Hence I recommend the 4400+.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: Technomancer
Actually, the issue with L2 cache is not that it doesn't provide performance improvements per se, but rather that it provides diminishing returns until there comes a point where adding more causes more trouble than it's worth. Case in point: Intel's current designs with 2 MB L2 cache. I have no idea how they're handling calls to RAM, but there were one or two cases where there was a slight (less than 1%) decrease in performance in a certain few applications. This leads me to think they fill the whole L2 cache every memory call, but I could be wrong. The upgrade from 512 KB to a MB DID have improvements for both AMD and Intel on the order of around 7% or so, on average.

Your point while valid is based upon incorrect facts. The reason why the 6xx arent dramatically faster with 2MB of cache is because Intel increased the cache latency to combat heat related issues. I belive it was in the neighborhood of 15% or so.

 

[BitByBit]

L2 cache will prove to be more important on dual-core CPUs, since there is a shared memory interface. Although AMD's dual-core implementation is more efficient, there is still going to be some degree of bus contention, which means memory access needs to be reduced.

 

[Capt Caveman]

In regards to Motherboards:
1. Best Overclocking - any of the DFI nf4's
2. Ease of Use / Best Overclocking(notice I list this 2nd) - Asus A8N-Sli Premium (possibly A8N-e also)

 

[sbuckler]

Intel's increase in cache size is not a fair comparison, because each time the cache got slower:
Northwood: 512kb, takes 16 clock cycles to access.
Earlier prescott's 1024kb, takes 23? clock cycles to access.
Later prescott's 2048kb, takes 27? clock cycles to access.
This is one of the reasons why northwood is often faster clock for clock then prescott, particularly on simpler older games, and the main reason the 6 series prescotts are no faster then the 5 series ones even though they have twice the cache. It's also part of the reason centrino's are so quick (cache = 2048kb, takes a mere 10 clock cycles to access).

 

[BitByBit]

:thumbsup:

 

[KoolDrew]

4400+

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

4400+ once prices settle is only about 50 dollars more than the 4200+. I will take an extra 1024 L2 cache for 50 dollars.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
4400+ once prices settle is only about 50 dollars more than the 4200+. I will take an extra 1024 L2 cache for 50 dollars.

I would as well. When you are talking a $400ish CPU, $50 is a drop in the bucket as far as I'm concerned.

 

[TraumaRN]

Thanks to you all for the fast responses I think I will saddle up the extra money for the 4400+ then, and I wont be buying the processor til about the end of August so hopefully prices will have semi-stabilized at that point, and although I only got one response as far as what mobo to use I'll keep that in mind also....otherwise it looks like I'll be working a few graveyard and 12 hour shifts to pay for my new comp but it shall definitely be worth it!

 

[KoolDrew]

For overclocking I would definitely suggest the DFI NF4 Ultra-D.

 

[anarchyreigns]

I would suggest the DFI nForce4 Ultra-D even if you don't overclock.

 

[imported_wyrmrider]

cache size is application dependent, what are you going to do
in any case for $50 go with the larger cache

 

[imported_Technomancer]

Alright, thanks for the info on Intel's caching. Now I can see why Centrino's got some popularity.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Technomancer
Actually, the issue with L2 cache is not that it doesn't provide performance improvements per se, but rather that it provides diminishing returns until there comes a point where adding more causes more trouble than it's worth. Case in point: Intel's current designs with 2 MB L2 cache. I have no idea how they're handling calls to RAM, but there were one or two cases where there was a slight (less than 1%) decrease in performance in a certain few applications. This leads me to think they fill the whole L2 cache every memory call, but I could be wrong. The upgrade from 512 KB to a MB DID have improvements for both AMD and Intel on the order of around 7% or so, on average.

cache latency increased a bit (i think 30% or so) with the addition of extra cahce.

 

[miketheidiot]

edit: i should read the whole thread before posting