L2 Cache...big deal?

[Bona Fide]

Seems to be enough to warrant a ~$60 price premium. Does it really matter? Because otherwise, the processors are almost alike. Both can hit around 2.7ghz on stock cooling and they benchmark almost the same in everything...

Why does AMD do this to me??

 

[corpseofworms]

I would get it. Bigger cache=fewer trips to the memory.

 

[TankGuys]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Seems to be enough to warrant a ~$60 price premium. Does it really matter? Because otherwise, the processors are almost alike. Both can hit around 2.7ghz on stock cooling and they benchmark almost the same in everything...

Why does AMD do this to me??

The cache will help a bit, but only in certain applications. You must also realize that even in the ones where it does help, you *might* see a 5% increase in speed. My guess is that the $60 price premium is more like a 30% difference, so based on that, you may not want to go that route.

I'd say save the $60.

 

[Vegitto]

It depends on what you will use it for.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: TankGuys

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Seems to be enough to warrant a ~$60 price premium. Does it really matter? Because otherwise, the processors are almost alike. Both can hit around 2.7ghz on stock cooling and they benchmark almost the same in everything...

Why does AMD do this to me??

The cache will help a bit, but only in certain applications. You must also realize that even in the ones where it does help, you *might* see a 5% increase in speed. My guess is that the $60 price premium is more like a 30% difference, so based on that, you may not want to go that route.

I'd say save the $60.

exctaly in certain apps...encoding = NO...gaming = more so then most....IN most cases the L2 cache in my reviews of the numbers never seem to live up to the PR ratings....

Now in the case of X2's the price difference of the 512kb vs 1mb models makes it a no brainer to get the 1mb model...the 4200 and 4400 models are just too close in price (based on amd pricing and current retail markup may not reflect this....) to ignore it.....plus that is 512 more per core and yet it still has only a 200 pr rating like the San Diegos get versus the venices for only having one core...Usually their price premium is a bit more as well...

 

[Bona Fide]

Thanks guys for the quick answers. I think I'm gonna stick with the 3700 here, because a bigger L2 cache may mean better performance in 64-bit apps...which are no doubt soon to come.

 

[Elfear]

Like Duvie said if you game a lot than it would probably be worth it. Guitardaddy got a 17% increase from the extra L2 when he compared the two. Otherwise $60 is $60.

 

[Xcobra]

Agree! In gaming there is a significant bump in performance...good luck

 

[Fallengod]

Id say save your money. Even in gaming, you can always tweak graphic settings and crap to get higher fps. Spending more money for minimal performance isnt worth it imo.

 

[Bona Fide]

Getting mixed opinions now. Well the bulk of my usage will be gaming and graphics design. I'm not gonna bother with dual-core because I think it's unnecessary. But if the L2 cache makes enough of a difference, I'll go with the 3700.

 

[n7]

I wouldn't even bother with the 3500+ Venice.

The highest Venice worth getting is the 3200+.

The highest San Diego worth getting is the 3700+

OCing is your friend

 

[cmrmrc]

http://www.bleedinedge.com/reviews/proc..._reviews/3700sd/3700_San-Diego_08.html

see for yourself...3700 has a 1% improvement over 3500 in productivity and a 3% boost in games...buy it if you think its worth the 60$ or unless youre really into overclocking and cool temps for you cpu.

 

[Bona Fide]

Well yeah I really want to OC this new system...I think I can get the 3700+ up to FX-55 speeds. That's what I'm hoping for at least. If I can get it past 2.4ghz, then the $60 will cancel out, since I'll effectively have a 4000+ for $150 less. And if I can get it up to 2.6, I'd have an FX-55 under the hood.