Why is the X2 3800+ Manchester better than its Toledo counterpart

[Silmatharien]

I see the Toledo has 1 MB cache/core but most people are recommending the Manchester for overclocking. Why is this? Just have a good reputation as an overclocker?

 

[BassBomb]

im thinkin, the smaller cache means less die area ie smaller die, means less heat? i dont think that would make much a difference

 

[996GT2]

I think the 2006 Manchesters are better overclockers, judging from OC databases.

 

[TheRyuu]

Since the X2 3800+ only has 512kb of L2 cache anyways, having the 1mb with half disabled would be a waste of die space, and probably, but not really that noticably higher temps? Also, wouldn't the smaller cache on the manchester have slightly better timings? Not really sure.

But for AMD, smaller die size (Manchester)=less money to make, which is good, cause it makes prices lower.

 

[Silmatharien]

thanks for the input everyone. I really appreciate this.

 

[Effect]

People most likely recommend it because of the price. If you're overclocking, why pay more for the cpu when you'll get similar results anyway?

 

[Amaroque]

If you're on a budget, the Manchester is a better CPU for you. 512 Vs 1024 cache only makes a minimal difference today.

If you're concerned about money, your dollars would be better spent on other components. That's what people are saying.

 

[amdwilliam1985]

yea i think people recommending it mainly because of the price/performance ratio. after all why buy a 600$ chip when you could buy a 300$ and oc it to 600$.

 

[Duvie]

the cache theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense simply because OPterons have as much cache as the Toldeos and are the new but kickers when it come to OCing....