• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CPU cache and Game Performance

Ok, so we are comparing these two:
3600 X2 90nm, 2ghz, 256X2 l2 cache with 3600 X2 65 nm, 1,9 ghz, 512X2 l2 cache.

Well at stock clocks I guess they are pretty similar. The 90 nm cpu wins at frequency and looses on l2 cache, making them quite about equal, although the brisbane might be a bit faster overall. Once you start overclocking, the 3600+ x2 on 65 nm will hit pretty easy 2,8 ghz, topping 3 ghz with voltage increase, while the other one will struggle to touch 2,6 ghz, even with high voltages.

So, if you are thinking which to buy, then the 65 nm cpu is clearly the best choice ( better overclocking, lower power consumption).

Level 2 cache on AMD cpus doesn't seem that important, but I've read reviews where in games like Half Life Episode 2, higher L2 cache really increased performance over AMD chips with half the cache. So...
 
From a review I read a while ago (can't find it) In UT3, going from 3mb L2 cache to 6mb L2 cache, there was a 14% increase in frame rates @ 1280x1024 other results were between 4-10%
 
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
From a review I read a while ago (can't find it) In UT3, going from 3mb L2 cache to 6mb L2 cache, there was a 14% increase in frame rates @ 1280x1024 other results were between 4-10%
Click to expand...

We are speaking only about AMD cpus. The cache doesn't have the same impact in performance on AMD chips like it has on Intel ones.
 
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
From a review I read a while ago (can't find it) In UT3, going from 3mb L2 cache to 6mb L2 cache, there was a 14% increase in frame rates @ 1280x1024 other results were between 4-10%
Click to expand...

We are speaking only about AMD cpus. The cache doesn't have the same impact in performance on AMD chips like it has on Intel ones.
Click to expand...

Maybe because AMD chips have so little L2 cache compared to Intel chips? In one, you're comparing 512KB to 1MB. In the other, you're comparing 3MB to 6MB. That's a huge difference.
 
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
From a review I read a while ago (can't find it) In UT3, going from 3mb L2 cache to 6mb L2 cache, there was a 14% increase in frame rates @ 1280x1024 other results were between 4-10%
Click to expand...

We are speaking only about AMD cpus. The cache doesn't have the same impact in performance on AMD chips like it has on Intel ones.
Click to expand...

Maybe because AMD chips have so little L2 cache compared to Intel chips? In one, you're comparing 512KB to 1MB. In the other, you're comparing 3MB to 6MB. That's a huge difference.
Click to expand...

correct, AMD needs to hurry with those new versions (6/8mb of cache) so we can see how well games can run on them
 
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
From a review I read a while ago (can't find it) In UT3, going from 3mb L2 cache to 6mb L2 cache, there was a 14% increase in frame rates @ 1280x1024 other results were between 4-10%
Click to expand...

We are speaking only about AMD cpus. The cache doesn't have the same impact in performance on AMD chips like it has on Intel ones.
Click to expand...

Maybe because AMD chips have so little L2 cache compared to Intel chips? In one, you're comparing 512KB to 1MB. In the other, you're comparing 3MB to 6MB. That's a huge difference.
Click to expand...

I recall when AMD x2 cpu's had 2MB total L2 cache, and even then there wasn't much difference from 2MB to 1MB in gaming performance.
 
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
From a review I read a while ago (can't find it) In UT3, going from 3mb L2 cache to 6mb L2 cache, there was a 14% increase in frame rates @ 1280x1024 other results were between 4-10%
Click to expand...

We are speaking only about AMD cpus. The cache doesn't have the same impact in performance on AMD chips like it has on Intel ones.
Click to expand...

Maybe because AMD chips have so little L2 cache compared to Intel chips? In one, you're comparing 512KB to 1MB. In the other, you're comparing 3MB to 6MB. That's a huge difference.
Click to expand...

That, and also the IMC offsets the performance cost of going out to RAM somewhat, IIRC.
 
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
From a review I read a while ago (can't find it) In UT3, going from 3mb L2 cache to 6mb L2 cache, there was a 14% increase in frame rates @ 1280x1024 other results were between 4-10%
Click to expand...

We are speaking only about AMD cpus. The cache doesn't have the same impact in performance on AMD chips like it has on Intel ones.
Click to expand...

Aside from the on-die memory controller, how so?
 
Originally posted by: x2 3600 rules sazakky
i dont knoiw what your taling about as i overclocked my 3600x2 90nm to 2.7ghz easily
Click to expand...

Well that's great. I've read some reviews about it and it touched 2,6 ghz with lot of pain. My 3800+ X2, which is just like yours but with 2x512 kb cache, also got to 2,6 ghz struggling.
So, you've got yourself an above average overclock for that chip. 😉
 
I think it also heavily depends on how the game in question is coded. Generally, games that are not well-coded, or based on messy engines tend to benefit more from larger L2. Modern, DX9/DX10 titles as well (heavy data set).
 
AMD used integrated memory controllers, so L2 cache size doesn't impact it nearly as much as say Core2 where the cores required bigger L2 to compensate.
 
Cache is infact one of the reasons I upgraded from an Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 to an Intel Xeon X3210 w/ 8MB Shared Cache...although it doesn't make to much of a difference, every little bit helps. I'd have to agree with everyone else though, on AMD platforms it's a whole different story.
 
The X2 will be struggling with Crysis anyway so relative framerates will be dependent on a great many other factors. I have a lot of experience with the Athlon 64 socket 939 and the Athlon XP series and in my experience, the way AMD names the chips is a pretty close indicator of relative performance. You find a lot of AMD chips with different specs but the same name because AMD has determined they perform very close. As a rule you find a 0.1 GHz speed difference equates to about 512KB cache size difference.

If you plan to run the chips at stock speed just get whatever's cheaper. If you plan to overclock get the newer chip with the larger cache since you will probably overclock higher than the other one.
 
Originally posted by: Woody
The X2 will be struggling with Crysis anyway so relative framerates will be dependent on a great many other factors. I have a lot of experience with the Athlon 64 socket 939 and the Athlon XP series and in my experience, the way AMD names the chips is a pretty close indicator of relative performance. You find a lot of AMD chips with different specs but the same name because AMD has determined they perform very close. As a rule you find a 0.1 GHz speed difference equates to about 512KB cache size difference.

If you plan to run the chips at stock speed just get whatever's cheaper. If you plan to overclock get the newer chip with the larger cache since you will probably overclock higher than the other one.
Click to expand...

😛 Fixed.
 
this is the best I can find, x2 4400's scoring -

Quake IV:
1mb 81.40
512kb 75.40

Serious Sam 2:
1mb 111.30
512kb 102.90

approx 7% improvement, more than I would expect. Crysis is even more GPU bound so my assumption is less benefit will carry.

If you want to compare both exact cpus in Crysis, you have three easy options: spend more time googling than me, have better google skillz or go buy both cpus and run benchies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top