AMD Athlon64 3400+ 512 or 1MB?

[wartime]

So im building a new computer for my dad, and he wants a fast intel, currently I have a Intel p4 3.2C(289) and a Asus p4c800E-Deluxe(174). So what im thinking is, why not give my dad my 3 month old intel and buy another Asus motherboard(K8N-E Deluxe(139), and a 3400+(289 or 375)


So right now my CPU and Mobo go for 463 dollars on newegg.
The CPU and mobo im looking at costs 428 or 514 dollars on newegg.

So my question is, should I get the 512 L2 Cache and not owe my parents a dime, or should i save about 50 dollars to get the 1MB Cache? Also, how hard will it be to change to AMD, will it just be installing the new drivers for the motherboard... or is it something more complex?

AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-426&depa=0

AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 512k L2 Cache, The Only 64-bit Windows Compatible Processor - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-484&depa=0


rest of specs
1GB Kingston HyperX Series PC3200
ATi 9800PRO AIW

Thank you

 

[Cyanide]

Save $50 and get the 1mb cache.

No, it's not hard to switch to AMD. In fact, you don't have to do anything differently during instalation.

 

[JFry]

sorry to hijack your thread Wartime, but I don't think this deserves its own thread really and it seems to fit here. Can someone explain to me what the L2 cache is/does?

 

[GPRT]

Can someone explain to me what the L2 cache is/does?

http://www.cyberwalker.net/columns/dec99/091299.html

If i was you i would go with the 512k L2 cache as this processor benefits from being clocked at 2.4 ghz compared to 2.2ghz.

 

[Cyanide]

CPU cache is basicly ram that is integrated into the CPU. It's much faster than normal system ram though, and you will see why in a second.

A lot of information needs to be processed repeatedly by the CPU. Meaning that it needs to be accessed quite frequently. Cache is used to store this information so that it can be accessed as quickly as possible. Accessing system ram takes much longer (in terms of nanoseconds anyway) than accessing cache. So the more cache a processor has, the more information it can store for repeated use and the less often it has to access system memory. This makes processing of information more efficient and thus makes the processor work faster. This is one of the reasons why clock speed isn't the all important factor in overal performance. A 2ghz CPU with 512k of cache is going to be slower than a 2ghz CPU with 1mb of cache because the later can store twice as much info for super fast access.

 

[JFry]

Thanks you guys have been most helpful. So if I am understanding that article correctly you would idealy want a 4mb cache for 1gb of ram? This doesn't seem right to me, 4mb seems insanely high for relatively low amount of ram.

 

[Cyanide]

Thanks you guys have been most helpful. So if I am understanding that article correctly you would idealy want a 4mb cache for 1gb of ram?

No, that article is pretty old. Technology has changed.

Besides, there are no PC processors with 4mb of cache (on L2 anyway).

 

[wartime]

Thanks for all your help, and JFry, i had similar question aswell

also, what is the difference between L2 and L3 cache?

 

[JFry]

ahh so I see. Can you tell me what would be ideal for 1gig of ram?

 

[The_Nexus]

http://www.cyberwalker.net/columns/dec99/091299.html

If i was you i would go with the 512k L2 cache as this processor benefits from being clocked at 2.4 ghz compared to 2.2ghz.

double l2 cache beats extra 8% cpu clock anyday of the week, by a LOOONG shot imho

 

[The_Nexus]

I should qualify that last staement. It in istelf could seem subjective to the gamer...it is well known that servers difinatly beifit from teh extra cache....and a few year ago becasue of slower clocks..even harcore gamer bought the extra caxhe xhips and laid down the coin.

However i am thinking even long term...as off this moment the performance vs cash...cash issue is negligable with todays apps.

However if u don'y like swapping processors every week.....long horn is coming along with all the 64 bit apps ect(i.e GAMES)....wich will lead to a much bigger demand on l2 cache from the software. Little diff for the monent..but in a year or so...the 1mb cache will pay off big time

Pay now or pay later..but sooner or later yer gonna have to pay.

 

[[Matt]]

if you want my opinion i would stay away from socket 754 as its a dead end as AMD are dropping support for this CPU soon. Socket 754 only supports single channel memory compared to the dual channel support of socket 939. Also the current fastest socket 754, the 3700+ is the fastest socket 754 CPU AMD will ever make as any CPU's faster than that speed will be on socket 939 only whilst socket 939 may go up to 5000+ by the end of next year and possibly beyond.

 

[Cyanide]

Thanks for all your help, and JFry, i had similar question aswell

also, what is the difference between L2 and L3 cache?

L3 is just another level of cache. The L stands for level. So basicly it means that this cache is the third level of cache on the chip. It is "farther away" from the CPU than the L1 or L2 cache, and so is slower to access, but can also be larger in size and still remain much faster than system memory. For example, the P4 extreme edition has 2mb of L3 cache, and 512k of L2 cache. One thing to note is that the farther the cache is from the CPU the less impact it has on performance per KB. So 2mb of L3 cache doesn't improve performance like 2mb of L2 cache would, but it still has a signifigant affect.

 

[wartime]

if you want my opinion i would stay away from socket 754 as its a dead end as AMD are dropping support for this CPU soon. Socket 754 only supports single channel memory compared to the dual channel support of socket 939. Also the current fastest socket 754, the 3700+ is the fastest socket 754 CPU AMD will ever make as any CPU's faster than that speed will be on socket 939 only whilst socket 939 may go up to 5000+ by the end of next year and possibly beyond.

So what your saying is i should dish out another 50 dollars (so i would owe my parents 100 total) to get this...

AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 512K, L2 Cache, Windows Compatible 64-bit Processor 939 Pin - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-463&depa=1

ASUS "A8V Deluxe" VIA K8T800 Pro Chipset Motherboard For AMD Socket 939 CPU -RETAIL
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=13-131-510&depa=1

 

[Asus]

If it was me, I would get the Athlon 64 512Kb L2 Cache 2.4GHz chip.

When I was looking between the Athlon 64 3000+ and 3200+ (1MB L2 cache version), the 3000+ was very close to the performance of the 3200+ with just less cache and at the same clock speed (2GHz). Then I looked below to the A64 2800+ and the difference was bigger. Same L2 cache but 200MHz less clock speed.
Right now they are changing the 3200+ and 3400+ with new cores that have 512K L2 cache but increased clock speed.

Cache gives you very nice gains but clock speed will be more important and help out in all of your applications unlike additional L2 Cache.