PDA

View Full Version : Is IT Better To Have 1Mb L2 Or clockspeed


john19055
10-02-04, 02:18 AM
Witch is faster in games haveing at AND64 with a 1Mb of L2 cache or haveing the faster speed 64 3200 at 2g and 1Mb of L2 Cache or AMD 64 3200 at 2.2Gig.

jAkUp
10-02-04, 02:37 AM
I would take the 1mb... simply because its easy to overclock to get the extra 200mhz :)

bkswaney
10-04-04, 01:29 AM
I would take the 1mb... simply because its easy to overclock to get the extra 200mhz :)


For sure. :D

Seraphim
10-04-04, 02:14 AM
I thought about this same issue before I ordered. In the end I went for the 2.2 ghz 512k version.

Why? Because the new core overclocks higher, and it was less expensive. Now I got mine a month ago, so things may have changed, but when I ordered I believe the 1 meg cache version was $85 dollars more. Plus I got this 2.2 ghz running @ 2.65, I don't think the 1 meg version would pull that off.

|JuiceZ|
10-04-04, 07:51 AM
Why? Because the new core overclocks higher, and it was less expensive.

Was just about to say that, Newcastle cores have much better overclockabilty than Clawhammers.

btw, nice o'c, is that on air?

john19055
10-04-04, 10:43 AM
In ever review I could find useing google the AMD 3400 at 2.4gig with 512m of cache beat the AMD 3400 at 2.2gig with 1m of cache in encoding and games ,so I think I made the right choice.

saturnotaku
10-04-04, 10:54 AM
btw, nice o'c, is that on air?

Look at his sig and ye shall find thine answer. :p :D

john19055
10-04-04, 11:37 AM
What brand of ram do you have that 3200 will over clock that high 240 and low legacy.I was just wondering because I have corsair 3500 and it is rated to 217.

|JuiceZ|
10-04-04, 12:33 PM
What brand of ram do you have that 3200 will over clock that high 240 and low legacy.I was just wondering because I have corsair 3500 and it is rated to 217.

My board is currently using some old OCZ PC3200 but from what I hear in the MSI & overclockers.uk forum, the OCZ Platinum Enhanced Bandwidth Series ram is some of the best. Plenty of guys running 260+ w/ it. HyperX is quite good as well. What mb you plain to combo w/ yer newcastle 3200+?

Look at his sig and ye shall find thine answer. :p :D

Yea I read that but couldn't believe it, thats why I asked :p

Pantherman
10-04-04, 05:46 PM
The extra 1mb L2 cache boosts performance about 5-7%. A 2.0GHz A64 Clawhammer should run about as fast as a 2.1GHz Newcastle. I'd take the clockspeed over the 1MB cache. Unfortunately, my A64 is a Clawhammer :lame: I like it, but I'm not switching to a Newcastle. The extra 1MB L2 cache doesn't do much for the A64 and neither does the dual channel DDR RAM. The Athlon's on-die memory controller really helps out.

Rytr
10-04-04, 06:16 PM
I got the Clawhammer 3400+ w/1MB L2 cache because they were being discontinued (a little nostalgia, hehe). It will go to 2.4 on air with stock sink but that is where the Newcastle starts so by rights the Newcastle version should be faster if it will overclock at all. Both were priced the same at Monarch when I purchase the it.
My 3000+ Newcastle will exceed 2.4 so speed was not really a priority with my purchase.

Gator
10-05-04, 06:10 AM
When it came time for me to choose I went with the Clawhammer instead of the Newcastle. I'm not overclocking, and I thought perhaps the 1meg L2 cache would come in handy some day. I also figured better get it while the getting was good, because they discontinued the 1meg verson. Finally if I really wanted the extra 200mhz I could easily overclock to it.

Schumi4ever
10-05-04, 10:06 AM
I just replaced my nc with a ch. You can oc 200mhz, but not 512kb l2 cache :D

john19055
10-05-04, 12:41 PM
But in the 754 socket case it has shown in all the reviews that the 1meg cache is slower then the extra 200mhz,so IMO it is not needed so I will never miss it.and besides that I really don't think the 754 will have a long life anyways.with the new 939 comeing out.I wish I had got one of then,I should have done more researching because for about the same price I could of got one of the new 939 .9o in size,don't know how good they overclock or if they run hot, but later on I could have updated the procsessor a lot more easy them with a 754 chipset.

Barto
10-06-04, 11:40 AM
IMO it would be better to have the 1MB cache. As far as the Newcastle being a better overclocker than a Clawhammer, that would depend on the luck of the draw (memory, MB and CPU). My late CO revision Clawhammer runs happily at 2.63 Ghz and I couldn't be happier.

john19055
10-06-04, 12:07 PM
Great overclock with your setup but all the reviews I have seen and googled up shows the extra 200mhz it the best way to go .Everone has there on thought to what is best.

circuitbreaker8
10-06-04, 03:33 PM
Lol, people are missing the whole point. A stock 3400 1mb vs. a stock 3400 512k, the CH would deff win. People are saying "well I can OC my 3400 to 2.5ghz!" Well uh, you can OC a 3400 1mb really far to, i've seen some of them hit 2.5-2.6 on air. Just depends on the stepping you get. :nanahump:

|JuiceZ|
10-06-04, 03:44 PM
Truth is, clock for clock the CH is faster due to the 1MB L2 but, considering mostly enthusiasts are buying these cpu's, it would be wise to go far a NC since they tend to o'c much higher on avg. Of course CPU stepping does play a role in this as well.

WimpMiester
10-06-04, 03:57 PM
One thing to note is that there is no 32-bit software written to use more than 512K cache. Most only need 256K, but this will surely change when 64-bit software is more wide spread. Then I would think 512K would be the minimum cache you would want to have.

Rytr
10-06-04, 04:16 PM
Most of the CH left should have the CG stepping I would think. Mine did! ;)

Don't write off the 754 too quickly. Most 754 pin boards have mature drivers now and are very fast. The 939's will improve and they do have the potential 5% increase with DC but that is not the here and now...maybe tommorrow. :D