Originally posted by: CalamitySymphony
Access times listed are almost always BS. And that differene also translates into 0 real world difference. If you can find a review clearly stating ones superiority over the other, then I stand corrected. I am way too lazy to find one myself.
I would get the cheaper one.
I dare you to call my FFD's .04ms access time bullshit in person. Once my machine gets to loading windows, it takes four tenths of a second. That's a far cry from 0 real world difference. While that's inapplicable to the OP, access times in are not. They are a significant factor in drive performance.
Originally posted by: Crescent13
The cache doesn't limit your overclocking ability, it just gives you better performance.
I agree with this.
They say it's better, because there are only 2 x2's with 2mb of cache,
4400+ 2.2ghz
4800+ 2.4ghz
Both are identical, except one is .2 ghz faster, if you're overclocking, there isn't enough of a gain to justify spending an extra howevermuch you will need to spend to upgrade from the 4400+, to the 4800+. Is this making any sense?
There are other 939 dual core cpus with 2MB of cache.
Opteron 165
Opteron 170
Opteron 175
Opteron 180