Athlon 64 3800+ question

Z

Zappathefappa

Guest
Hey I'm really confused: I've been romping around the tigerdirect.ca website looking for a new computer/components etc (which I've actually already bought - last night) and I was really confused by the clock speeds listed for various Athlon 64 processors.

What I ended up getting was a 3800+ (939) which was listed at "2.4ghz" but in my earlier searches I noticed that for any Athlon 64 processor between 3200+ and 4000+ the clock speed was listed at 2.4ghz also.
What's the deal?

I figured that they were either lazy in listing the clock speeds and guesstimated or the higher lvl Athlons have the same speeds but more operations per cycle or something. This technically doesn't matter anymore as I've already bought the comp but I'm still really curious. (I'm also wondering how fast my processor will be).

Oh, and ps. I ended up getting the 939 because I heard on this forum that it's better but how much of an advantage does it actually give?

Thanks for your replies.
 
I'm pretty sure that the 4000+ has a 1mb L2 Cache.
 
Socket 939 CPUs:
3000+ 1.8GHz 512KB L2
3200+ 2GHz 512KB L2
3500+ 2.2GHz 512KB L2
3700+ 2.2GHz 1MB L2
3800+ 2.4GHz 512KB L2
4000+ 2.4GHz 1MB L2
 
Asus said:
Socket 939 CPUs:
3000+ 1.8GHz 512KB L2
3200+ 2GHz 512KB L2
3500+ 2.2GHz 512KB L2
3700+ 2.2GHz 1MB L2
3800+ 2.4GHz 512KB L2
4000+ 2.4GHz 1MB L2

WOOT!

Sinkoman FTW.

But I doubt that the bigger cache makes a GIGANTIC difference.

Although the 3400's and their 1mb cache easilly outperform the 3500's...
 
sinkoman said:
WOOT!

Sinkoman FTW.

But I doubt that the bigger cache makes a GIGANTIC difference.

Although the 3400's and their 1mb cache easilly outperform the 3500's...

yea it can make a big difference i have a celeron with only 128kb and its terrible in games
 
giant384 said:
yea it can make a big difference i have a celeron with only 128kb and its terrible in games

Yeah, but that's a Celleron :upstare:

We're talking about two high end processors, almost exactly the same, one just has a 512k bigger l2 cache.
 
sinkoman said:
Yeah, but that's a Celleron :lookup:

We're talking about two high end processors, almost exactly the same, one just has a 512k bigger l2 cache.

excactly my point lol higher l2 cache will allow u to have better gaming preformance but i think 512kb is ok for now
 
giant384 said:
excactly my point lol higher l2 cache will allow u to have better gaming preformance but i think 512kb is ok for now

Well there is alittle more to it than just the l2 cache when you are comparing CPUs. The A64's are quite a bit different to celerons.
 
duffers20 said:
Well there is alittle more to it than just the l2 cache when you are comparing CPUs. The A64's are quite a bit different to celerons.

umm so what more is there to compare besides voltage if u want oc it
 
giant384 said:
umm so what more is there to compare besides voltage if u want oc it

dude the architecture is completely different...I dont get what your saying, sounds liek your trying to defend a celeron against an amd....
 
bryanf445 said:
dude the architecture is completely different...I dont get what your saying, sounds liek your trying to defend a celeron against an amd....

well accutlly i meant comparing amds not celeron vs amd of course amd would be it
 
giant384 said:
well accutlly i meant comparing amds not celeron vs amd of course amd would be it

Thats what I thought you meant, comparing celerons with amds, but it doesn't matter. If you are talking about overclocking then teh San Diego and Venice Cores are the ones to go for I think, they use a lower core voltage and and use 90nm cores so they run cooler to achieve higher overclocks.
 
giant384 said:
excactly my point lol higher l2 cache will allow u to have better gaming preformance but i think 512kb is ok for now

the difference between 512k and 1mb in these processors is about 2-5% in gaming.
 
Back
Top