Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mesquite, Nevada, USA.
    Posts
    3,439

    Default AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    ///////////////////

    AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    Is the 1MB L2 Cache on this Processor a big bonus over the more common (less expensive) 512KB Processor's?


    Thanks,

    Randy Burton

  2. #2
    BillA Guest

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    I have a 1MB 3400 chip and love it.....I dont know if there is a huge difference since I cant compare it to a 512 chip.

    Regards,
    Bill

  3. #3

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    >///////////////////
    >
    >AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor
    >
    >Is the 1MB L2 Cache on this Processor a big bonus over the
    >more common (less expensive) 512KB Processor's?
    >
    >
    >Thanks,
    >
    >Randy Burton

    In everyday use probably not,running a sim like fs9 I would think so. They've basically taken 1mb of memory,put it on the die to keep data continuously flowing to the processor.

    I would think in the future these L2 and L1 caches will only get larger so the data stream doesn't lag to these faster processors. I compare it to a video card with 128 memory vs 256. It wouldn't mean that much in many applications but worth alot when you run FS9.

    David


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sweat Mountain, GA
    Posts
    598

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    >I would think in the future these L2 and L1 caches will only
    >get larger so the data stream doesn't lag to these faster
    >processors. I compare it to a video card with 128 memory vs
    >256. It wouldn't mean that much in many applications but
    >worth alot when you run FS9.

    Please don't. The caches on a CPU and texture memory on a video card are completely different. Caches are not designed to replace system RAM, they are used as a latency hiding device since CPU speeds have increased much faster than RAM speeds.

    Texture memory on a video card is much like system memory; the more you have, the less likely you are to "swap" through the AGP port to the regular memory.

    However, buying a 256MB card is like buying a PC with 3GB of RAM - there are probably only one or two PC games in existence that require more than 128MB of video RAM for textures. Anyone who believes that FS9 runs faster with a 256MB card is suffering from a bad case of the placebo effect and needing to justify to himself his waste of money on an overpriced card. In many cases, FS9 will actually run slower since a lot of 256MB card actually have slower RAM than their 128MB bretheren.

    Cheers!

    Luke

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mesquite, Nevada, USA.
    Posts
    3,439

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    Wow Luke ,

    Some interesting statements!

    If You Will, Please........A little more of Your thoughts on my original question........Is the 1MB cache on the processor, worth the extra $$ ?

    And also, when and what is is used for in FS9 ?


    Thanks a bunch,

    Randy

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sweat Mountain, GA
    Posts
    598

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    >If You Will, Please........A little more of Your thoughts on
    >my original question........Is the 1MB cache on the
    >processor, worth the extra $$ ?

    Well, FS9 and almost any program will run faster with the extra 512K of cache memory; the question is, how much faster for how much more money? I honestly cannot say, and I haven't seen extensive benchmarks of FS9 with all of the Atlhon64 range.

    My gut tells me that the extra money might be better spent on a faster video card (let's say 6800 instead of a 6600 or 5900, or an X800 XT instead of a 9800), 1GB of RAM instead of 512MB, or a 10k drive instead of 7200.

    Cheers!

    Luke

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mesquite, Nevada, USA.
    Posts
    3,439

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    Thanks Luke,

    $11 dollars difference (newegg) is all between the (1MB) AMD Athlon 64 3400+, verses a (512kb).......looks to be money well spent?

    Be patient, if You will.......Somewhat confused (not hard to do), on the video card statements You make. ......My take, (which may not be what You're saying) is that the 128mb Cards are possibly faster than the 256mb?......Yet in the last post above You say "faster video card (let's say 6800 instead of a 6600 or 5900, or an X800 XT instead of a 9800"...........But they don't make (that I can find) a 6800 or X800 XT in 128mb......They're all 256mb ???

    Straighten me out here. (smile)


    Appreciated,

    Randy



  8. #8

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sweat Mountain, GA
    Posts
    598

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    >$11 dollars difference (newegg) is all between the (1MB) AMD
    >Athlon 64 3400+, verses a (512kb).......looks to be money
    >well spent?

    All other things being equal, yes. Check to make sure that both chips use the same type of socket and can use the same motherboard. Some Athlons are Socket 754, others are Socket 939. Make sure you're doing a true apples to apples comparison.

    >(which may not be what You're saying) is that the 128mb
    >Cards are possibly faster than the 256mb?......

    No. What I'm saying is that 256MB of video memory is overkill for 99.9% of all OpenGL/DirectX software available today. Many existing cards that come in 128 and 256 meg versions have the RAM in the latter version clocked slower.

    Basically, until you get into the X800 or 6x00 256MB is overkill. Always try and get a 128MB version. Your performance will be the same, but your wallet will notice the difference. In the high-end cards, get the fastest speed GPU/Memory you can find.

    Again, don't make assumptions. Before you buy a card make sure you know the speed of the GPU and the memory; just like you will know the CPU and RAM speed of your computer. Modern GPUs are essentially specialized computers and you should be interested in their specs.

    Cheers!

    Luke

  10. #10

    Default RE: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor

    >>If You Will, Please........A little more of Your thoughts on
    >>my original question........Is the 1MB cache on the
    >>processor, worth the extra $$ ?
    >
    >Well, FS9 and almost any program will run faster with the
    >extra 512K of cache memory; the question is, how much faster
    >for how much more money? I honestly cannot say, and I
    >haven't seen extensive benchmarks of FS9 with all of the
    >Atlhon64 range.
    >
    >My gut tells me that the extra money might be better spent
    >on a faster video card (let's say 6800 instead of a 6600 or
    >5900, or an X800 XT instead of a 9800), 1GB of RAM instead
    >of 512MB, or a 10k drive instead of 7200.
    >
    >Cheers!
    >
    >Luke

    The extra money we're talking about here is a whopping $11.00. Thats the diff between a 64 3400 with 512K and a 64 3400 with 1024. For $11 bucks I'd go for the larger cache.

    David


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. AMD 64-bit cache levels help
    By RyanbATC in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-08-2005, 08:42 AM
  2. P4 3000 cache 512 or 1Mb. What impact in FS2004 ?
    By inca in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2004, 03:54 PM
  3. P4 3000 cache 512 or 1Mb. What impact in FS2004 ?
    By inca in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2004, 03:02 PM
  4. AMD Athlon 64 3200+ to a Athlon 64 3400+ worth it?
    By longhaul747 in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-10-2004, 01:48 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-15-2002, 08:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •