Athlon 64 3200+ 512k vs. 1MB L2?

[cdipierr]

I haven't been keeping up with the A-64 world, so now that I want to delve into it on the desktop side (already have an A64 laptop), I'm a little confused.

I know AMD just announced the socket 939 A-64 line, which I guess is the scoket of the future.

But for a more budget minded setup, the socket 754 line seems to be ok.

However, when you get to 3200+, I notice that there are 512k vs. 1MB L2 cache versions. Is this the only difference? Is there a nice set of benchmarks that compares the two?

 

[dennisjai215]

the 512kb one has 200mhz higher clocked and is faster

 

[Bar81]

If you're not going to overclock the 512k version is faster. If overclocking you should get the 1MB version as on average it delivers a 5% performance advantage over the 512k version at the same clockspeed.

 

[OnEMoReTrY]

Not really, the 512k overclocks farther then the 1MB cache

 

[Bar81]

no it doesn't

 

[d1pham]

I have the Newcastle core and I'm pretty sure I can hit 2.6-2.7 on air. The 512mb cores do o/c higher than the 1mb cores.

 

[mato7742]

d1pham is right, anandtech even wrote that in an article somewhere, i believe.

 

[Bar81]

I'm glad you all believe that but the fact that you even make that statement indicates you have NO CLUE what you're talking about. Do your research before making claims that simply aren't accurate.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: d1pham
I have the Newcastle core and I'm pretty sure I can hit 2.6-2.7 on air. The 512mb cores do o/c higher than the 1mb cores.

if you can hit 2.7 on air, i'd like to see that...

post some screenies and benchmarks because i haven't seen a newcastle hit 2.7 on air before...

i've seen some 3400+ hit close to 2.6 on air but not 2.7

as for the newcastle overclocking better than the clawhammer...

i'm going to have to disagree...

i'm with bar81 on this...