512k vs 1MB cache - worth it?

ozbird · Apprentice Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 185

I had been waiting for the socket 939 Athlon64's to be released, but having seen the pricing scale (

) I think I'll stick to the humble socket 754.

I'm tossing up between the Athlon64 3000+ and 3200+, but aren't sure if the extra 512k of cache is worth A$100. Early reviews indicated that there was little difference between the two running 32-bit code, but I haven't found any comparisons when running 64-bit code (which I assume would use more cache?)

Any comments on this?

Thanks.

supernovae · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 82

Although i also have not been able to find any 64-bit performace comparisons, i think that the extra 512K will be invaluable when running 64-bit applications. I have read several articals that point to this effect.

I just recently purchased a 3200+ and am currently just fiddleing with getting a good Gentoo setup working.

supernovae

Lemma · Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:56 am Post subject:

Yeah, I too suggest you go for the 1M version as the difference in price is so small and the possible gain is so big (but that depends a lot of what you are running). BTW, I am running a 3200 and it is fast, by far the fastest computer I have ever used (but when I can persuede my supervisor to let me buy a new computer, I'd probably go 2 x opteron ;-)

).
_________________
Always make it as simple as possible, but no simpler
/Einstein

Evangelion · Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:34 am Post subject:

I have a new revision 3200+. The difference between the old and new revision is that the old one ran at 2GHz and had 1MB of L2-cache. The new revision runs at 2.2GHz and has 512KB of L2-cache. I too would be interested in 64bit benchmarks between the two.
_________________
My tech-blog | My other blog

Maedhros · Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:59 am Post subject:

Welll I have an old revision 3200+, so maybe I can help with a benchmark comparison? What program would you suggest to use?
_________________
No-one's more important than the earthworm.

Evangelion · Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:24 am Post subject:

ozbird · Apprentice Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 185

Evangelion · Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:51 am Post subject:

Andysan · Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:20 am Post subject:

I have the "new revision" too, it has the new "Newcastle" Core with CG-stepping.
I'am think you're right ozbird, it's a bit confusing

There are 3 revisions of the athlon64 3200+, first the Clawhammer with C0 stepping and 1mb LC2 (mostly spreaded), the Clawhammer with CG stepping and 1mb LC2 (very rare) and the Newcastle with 512mb LC but 200mhz more (only with CG stepping).

But it seems that the K8-Powernow module to enable the cool&quite feature still not work with the Newcastle Core

servo888 · Apprentice Joined: 22 Feb 2004 Posts: 293

I have the 3400+ 1mb L2, and I think you should also go with the 1mb cache. I see no reason not too if your upgrading.

ozbird · Apprentice Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 185

RAPUL · Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:13 am Post subject: 3400+

Well you can buy a 3400+, many if not all i know come with:

ozbird · Apprentice Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 185

pjp · Administrator Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067

I've been trying to make a similar decision between the $173 2800+ (512K/1.8GHz) and the $270 3200+ (1 MB/2GHz). $97 isn't huge, but it is still $97. The question is what 200MHz and 512K more cache would translate to.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo?

get sirius · Guru Joined: 27 Apr 2002 Posts: 316 Location: Madison, WI

Ozbird: I have a 3400+ C0 w/ 1MB, and it handles Corsair's Ultra Low-Latency PC3200 DDR ram just fine, running at Corsair's 2 3 2 6 timings. I bought this before the 512KB cache was spoken of, felt fortunate to have one with the 1MB cache, but really didn't know if or how much or under what circumstances it would be an advantage.

I hope you guys do the benchmarks and try to establish which has the advantage and when.

arrruken · n00b Joined: 28 Feb 2004 Posts: 48

I have a 3200+/512k and I just overclocked it to 2500mhz with my K8V. Sandra gives it a performance rating of 3746 in Windows, it flies on Gentoo. Thats with stock cooler and so far it seems perfectly stable. Only problem is my AGP and PCI clocks are a little higher than normal due to unlocked bus's. So far no problems though.

Evangelion · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:17 am Post subject:

I now have my 3200+ system up & running. And I must say that compared to my previous Gentoo-system, this thing is a beast!

But then again, my previous Gentoo-system was a 300Mhz P2-laptop

.
_________________
My tech-blog | My other blog