CPU Cache Difference - Opteron vs Athlon 64

[wayliff]

Would anybody please explain to me the difference performance wise and technical wise in the cache amount of a CPU?

I am currently planning on changing my mobo and CPU

I currently have an AMD Athlon Barton 3000+ 400FSB...and I wish to replace with with a Socket 939 AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 1MB of Cache.

However I see the 3500+ 512kb of Cache being more favorable price wise.

* I dont want taking an Opteron suggestion I will save some money.

I assume that more cache = better but not entirely sure why.

I generally do some MS Office application work, some VBA, Photoshop and do some gaming.

Thanks in advance.

 

[JAG87]

generally, more cache = better performance
but this is not always valid.
cache is memory that the cpu has enbedded in its die. larger cache size means that the cpu can store more information locally, where it is ready to be processed rather than calling data from the ram. Now, here is the tricky part.
processors benefit from large cache sizes only when the processor is capable of processing large amounts of data in shorter cycles. this means that a large cache size means squat, unless you are running a dual core processor, or literally multiple processors. on a single core processor such as the one you picked, 512 or 1024 will make almost no difference. But on a dual core processor it will make a huge difference. on a multi processor station (such as 2-or-4 opteron servers) it will make an immense difference. infact, they dont even make opterons with 512kb of cache

so unless you are planning on getting a dual core processor, or multi processor workstation, dont worry so much about cache.
cheers

 

[TSS]

the difference in performance should be like between 3-10%, depending on the benchmark. but for what your planning on doing, it doesnt matter that much.

office and VBA can make do with even a pentium 3, so no probs there. photoshop does get benifits from dual core, so going dual would only make sense if you use that the most. and gaming is more GPU limited than anything.

so yes, more cache = better performance, but not worth anything more then a 20-30 bucks higher price. IMHO, anyway.

 

[themusgrat]

Yes. For photo/video/gaming, 512 is enough, and more doesn't affect it much, maybe 1-5%, but I'd say not even 10%.

 

[wayliff]

For themusgrat...
May I ask for what reason did you get the Opteron 165?
What was your thinking when you chose?

Thanks.

 

[Cooler]

get dual core opty at that price point.

 

[wayliff]

I have to agree with the last comment...if price is right get it.

 

[wayliff]

I am going to have to say that getting an Opteron 146 is probably a better choice than the 3700+.
This 146 would probably overclock quite well, right?

What differences are there between the 144, 146 and 148? Other than clock speed.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: wayliff
I am going to have to say that getting an Opteron 146 is probably a better choice than the 3700+.
This 146 would probably overclock quite well, right?

What differences are there between the 144, 146 and 148? Other than clock speed.

im not to sure myself all i know is that they are dual core which mean in total then 2x reg L2 and if you oc i hear opty are better then the x2s.

 

[wayliff]

I dont think the 144, 146 and 148 are dual cores. Single cores.
The dual cores are 160, 165 and 170.

And somebody please correct me if wrong.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: wayliff
I dont think the 144, 146 and 148 are dual cores. Singles cores.
The dual cores are 160, 165 and 170.

And somebody please correct me if wrong.

just check your right.

 

[Fallengod]

There is no difference. Different multipliers.

Originally posted by: wayliff
I am going to have to say that getting an Opteron 146 is probably a better choice than the 3700+.
This 146 would probably overclock quite well, right?

What differences are there between the 144, 146 and 148? Other than clock speed.