athlon64 3200+ 1mb cache vs. 512kb cache

[cfule]

i just wanna know if there is a big performance difference between the 1mb and 512kb version of this processor. the thing is i've bought my first pc set with 1mb cache, so when everything is fine, iv bought another 4 set (i am planning to assemble 5 sets in the first place). so i was surprised to see the next 4 cpu iv ordered with only 512kb cache. i didnt know it even existed, maybe it was launched silently....

so is there a big performance difference between the two? if there is then am gonna return the last 4 iv ordered and exchange it for an athlon64 3200+ with 1mb cache

thanks in advance for any comment!

tsarls

 

[Newcastle]

The 200 extra Mhz of the 512k cache one is supposed to give slightly better performance than the having 1mb of cache, so no you didn't get ripped off or anything.

 

[hawksballer]

The newcastle which has the 512kb is slightly better than the clawhammer with 1mb cache because the extra 200mhz will help all applications whereas the 1mb L2 cache in clawhammer will only help out a few apps. Or that was my understanding

 

[effee]

Both are the same...3dmark01 scores between the two a different by 100 points.

 

[Machine350]

My understanding is that they are pretty stinkin close in performance. I would probably go with the 512 cache, they are slightly cheaper and can overclock a little better.