popeye
06-10-2005, 12:17 PM
I am repeating my post from another thread because a lot of people seem curious about the effects of L2 cache size on similar Athlon processors such as the Venice and San Diego.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
importance of cache
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a little tidbit from techreport.com benchmark tests:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/athlon64-3500/index.x?pg=1
I couldn't find a more current test yet but I'll be back.
basically a larger cache wins in almost every benchmark.
"In seven of our tests, mostly games, 1MB of L2 cache helps the Athlon 64 3400+ overcome its single-channel memory controller and come out ahead of the 3500+. If you're primarily a gamer, that's a pretty compelling selling point for the 3400+, which can be had for $60 cheaper than the 3500+."
EDIT:
[B]Ok So here's the benchmark test of San Diego 3700 1MB cache vs. Venice 3800 with 512K cache. They are very, very close. I would get the 3700 with the cache though... but that's just me.
http://www.babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http://www.compressorcooling.com/html/amd_athlon_64_san_diego_vs__ve.html
It would help if the author could write little more clearly...
Here's the forum discussion where I found it:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/43592
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
importance of cache
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a little tidbit from techreport.com benchmark tests:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/athlon64-3500/index.x?pg=1
I couldn't find a more current test yet but I'll be back.
basically a larger cache wins in almost every benchmark.
"In seven of our tests, mostly games, 1MB of L2 cache helps the Athlon 64 3400+ overcome its single-channel memory controller and come out ahead of the 3500+. If you're primarily a gamer, that's a pretty compelling selling point for the 3400+, which can be had for $60 cheaper than the 3500+."
EDIT:
[B]Ok So here's the benchmark test of San Diego 3700 1MB cache vs. Venice 3800 with 512K cache. They are very, very close. I would get the 3700 with the cache though... but that's just me.
http://www.babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http://www.compressorcooling.com/html/amd_athlon_64_san_diego_vs__ve.html
It would help if the author could write little more clearly...
Here's the forum discussion where I found it:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/43592