Is there a reason the A64 with 1MB cache seems less popular than the A64 with the 512KB cache?

[bupkus]

Is there a reason the A64 with 1MB cache seems less popular than the A64 with the 512KB cache?

Sometimes, I look at the number of replies at newegg.com to see what's currently a hot seller to get a quick look at what's got the buyers' attention. I wonder if the 1MB cache chip OC's as well as it's small sibbling.

 

[Algere]

1MB cache versions (Clawhammers) are usually clocked 200MHz lower than the 512KB cache A64's & the 200MHz advantage wins over +512KB cache.

 

[bupkus]

I suppose then the 1 MB cache has it's advantages for some applications, but not necessarily gaming which I tend to think is the greatest need for speed for most desktop users.

 

[berkut7]

Aren't they considerably more expensive than half a meg?

 

[bupkus]

It seems those with a 1MB cache are not only $1 cheaper, they're really designed for mobile computers.

I just found this link for further investigation.

 

[WuGahCha]

A64 arent as memory starved cuz the onchip memory controller thingy, so 1meg cache doesnt help as much as extra 200mhz

 

[Megatomic]

I guess you guys didn't read the benchmarks that came out with the 3400+ 1MB L2. In many tests it was found to very comparable to the FX-51. The real reason the 512K chips are more popular, IMO, is that they overclock better.

 

[WuGahCha]

isnt the OC advantage due to the 90nm die shrink and S939??

 

[imported_Computer MAn]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
I guess you guys didn't read the benchmarks that came out with the 3400+ 1MB L2. In many tests it was found to very comparable to the FX-51. The real reason the 512K chips are more popular, IMO, is that they overclock better.