PRobably an old chestnut - AMD X2, cache sizes and overclocking

[cah]

Now, in the past i have always held two assumptions:
a) cache size is not the be-all and end-all in performance. Therefore, doubling of cache from 256 to 512 is important, but of course less so between 1024 and 2048KB.
b) Larger caches reduce overclocking potential.


Regarding the new X2s since i will be building a new computer to replace my athlon mobile I am left with two questions:
a) If i get the 512KB model over the 1024KB will i lose overclocking potential.
b) If there is no difference in overclocking, will the double cache size lead to any major performance differences?

Ultimately the big question is do I go with the 1024 2.2Ghz X2 or the 512 2.2Ghz chip?????????????????????????

2.4Ghz seems a waste of money imo.

[StormPC]

If you are looking to go X2 then money had better not be an issue. X2's will be in very short supply at first. If you are building anytime soon expect to pay upwards of $1000.00 US for even the slowest X2. Also, depending on what you use your computer for dualcore may not only be a waste of money but might even border on stupidity.

If you primarily game (or 3D bench) and do normal activities (surf the web, office applications and occasional encoding or DVD ripping) the dualcores are not for you unless you have tons of money and don't mind getting beaten buy much cheaper machines running singlecore A64's.

Dualcores and dual CPUs are primarily for number crunching (SETI, Folding, etc...) and for heavy multi-threaded audio or video encoding programs. They will do next to nothing for gaming and everyday applications.

[cah]

yeah - availability and price will not be a problem when i come back from my summer hols which is when i intend to buy. Plus i can get trade prices

TBH, from all the benchmarks the dual cores can easily compete with their current single cored brethren in all disciplines. So if I can overclock on air the dual cores to 2.7Ghz i think that will still be a cracking CPU - and i doubt it will be all that expensive either if I get the 2.2Ghz models for £250 to £300.

Anyway, i do do a lot of media transcoding in the background, PVR, and folding and gaming on my athlon at the moment so i think dual core is precisely what i need as long as it can hold its own against current cpus. can you imagine - dual cores in a SFF - or better yet, dual 275s in an iwill zmax dp

But then again, your reply was hardly relevant in terms of answering my questions

[Rave]

A)Basically- no. Nowadays it seems that having a larger cache has no effect on overclocking potential; compare Bartons to Tbreds, or Prescott 6XXs to 5XXs, or Clawhammers to Newcastles- if anything, it seems the larger cache chips are better overall.

B)Will you lose much performance? A bit, but not much. 1mb cache on an A64 helps quite a lot in 3DMark2001, and makes a small difference in most games. I seem to recall that the price premium for the 2.2GHz 1MB cache chip was only going to be about £40 over the 512KB cache part though....TBH I'd be inclined to pay the extra.

[oralpain]

Yeha, I would also go for the 2.2Ghz 1m L2. Overclocking potential should be very similar and double the cache for 30-40 pounds is a better deal than a 200Mhz core boost for 200-300 pounds.

[cah]

Yeah - thanks all. that's precisely what i was thinking. plus with a lower multiplier you can up the FSB a lot more considering PC4000 is so cheap.

Yeah, the difference is nothing so no point going for 512kB if it makes no difference.

I have to admit, $1000 for a 4800+ seems to be a tad excessive. but their top-of-the-line has to have top-of-the-pricelist too

[Smokey21]

Why get one?

[PanzerKnight]

got this from the register, not sure how accurate:

Official AMD pricing per chip, which is in US dollars and for a tray of 1,000 processors is as follows: 4200+, $537; _4400+, $581; _4600+, $803; _and 4800+, $1001.

Working from those figures we estimate that the X2 will sell in the UK including VAT at these prices: 4200+, £375_; 4400+, £400_; 4600+, £560; and _4800+, £700.

Would quite happily save up for a 4200+ upgrading from my current system. Speaking of the 4200+, here are some words from techreport.com

Let's start by talking about the Athlon 64 X2 4200+. This CPU generally offers better performance than its direct competitor from Intel, the Pentium D 840. Most notably, the X2 4200+ doesn't share the Pentium D's relatively weak performance in single-threaded tasks like our 3D gaming benchmarks. The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ also consumes less power, at the system level, than the Pentium D 840—just a little bit at idle (even without Cool'n'Quiet) but over 100W under load. That's a very potent combo, all told. In fact, the X2 4200+ frequently outperforms the Pentium Extreme Edition 840, which costs nearly twice as much. Thanks to its dual-core config, the X2 4200+ also embarrasses some expensive single-core processors, like the Athlon 64 FX-55 and the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz. Personally, I don't think there's any reason to pay any more for a CPU than the $531 that AMD will be asking for the Athlon 64 X2 4200+.

[oralpain]

plus with a lower multiplier you can up the FSB a lot more considering PC4000 is so cheap.

All A64s can use lower than stock multiplier anyway, so this is irrelivant.

[StormPC]

yeah - availability and price will not be a problem when i come back from my summer hols which is when i intend to buy. Plus i can get trade prices

TBH, from all the benchmarks the dual cores can easily compete with their current single cored brethren in all disciplines. So if I can overclock on air the dual cores to 2.7Ghz i think that will still be a cracking CPU - and i doubt it will be all that expensive either if I get the 2.2Ghz models for £250 to £300.

Anyway, i do do a lot of media transcoding in the background, PVR, and folding and gaming on my athlon at the moment so i think dual core is precisely what i need as long as it can hold its own against current cpus. can you imagine - dual cores in a SFF - or better yet, dual 275s in an iwill zmax dp

But then again, your reply was hardly relevant in terms of answering my questions

a) NO!
b) YES!

BTW...According to AMD the FX-55 is still their flagship CPU. There are reasons for this. Aside from encoding where the DC chips are slightly superior, the highend singlecore A64's will continue to stomp everything else, especially in overclocking.

If you are truly serious about encoding the Intel 840's will kick butt on the AMD stuff by design. This assumes their will be supply enough to keep the prices from going ballistic, which I do not believe will be the case. For us enthusiasts the FX-57 (and 4200++ San Diego) is what we're waiting for.

If you're not building for three months don't you think you're jumping the gun a bit? Perhaps you should have waited until you were ready (at least within a couple of weeks or so) to build. 3 months is half a generation in computer years.

[oralpain]

From what I've seen the X2s are way better than the FX-55s at encoding and better than the Intel dual cores at this as well. The only thing that has kept intel chips really superior in encoding is HT, that advantage does not help against an X2.

Even in single threaded apps where the FX-55 is faster, it's only marginally faster, becasue it has only a marginally higher core clock.

Yeah, the single core chips will probably overclock better.

[dgr]

If you are building anytime soon expect to pay upwards of $1000.00 US for even the slowest X2.

Not true - the retail prices for the 4200 and 4400 (the two at the bottom of the range) are £375 and £400 respectively.

Dualcores and dual CPUs are primarily for number crunching (SETI, Folding, etc...) and for heavy multi-threaded audio or video encoding programs. They will do next to nothing for gaming and everyday applications.

Bull****. Of COURSE they will help your everyday apps - these are the types of things that will benefit massively from dual core - as the CPU can shedule them to run on either CPU. Throw a dozen apps at an X2 and it'll operate SO much better than a single core CPU. Don't believe me? Check this out:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2397&p=21

Dual core will also benefit games slightly as the game can run on one CPU whilst the rest of your apps run on the other.

[StormPC]

oralpain and dgr,

There is so much BS in your posts that I decided I would address only the parts that are not BS.

oralpain said, "Yeah, the single core chips will probably overclock better." Gee, ya think?

dgr said, "Not true - the retail prices for the 4200 and 4400 (the two at the bottom of the range) are £375 and £400 respectively." True enough (except for where you said "Not true"), but when the 6800 Ultra first came out I was the only one who had them. I sold them for between $800.00 and $1400.00 on eBay. The list was $499.00. Welcome to free market, and supply and demand.

Edit:

[rajagra]

There is so much BS in your posts that I decided I would address only the parts that are not BS.

If you upgrade to a dual-core CPU, it will allow you address BS and non-BS data simultaneously.

[StormPC]

If you upgrade to a dual-core CPU, it will allow you address BS and non-BS data simultaneously.

I thought I was doing that now...

I've said it a million times. Dualcore is nothing new except for the geographical location of the second core. They've had multi-CPU systems for years. If you have not been interested in dual CPUs you have absolutely no reason to be interested in dualcore. Can't put it more simply than that.

[rajagra]

Dualcore is nothing new except for the geographical location of the second core. They've had multi-CPU systems for years. If you have not been interested in dual CPUs you have absolutely no reason to be interested in dualcore. Can't put it more simply than that.

I think many people have been interested in dual CPUs, but have been put off by the need for dual sockets on the mobo! These mobos have tended to be expensive, and the range of choice has been limited.
I see the AMD X2s are 939 pin. Does that mean they fit in any socket 939 mobo with updated BIOS? If so, then you're right, dual core is nothing new - except people will be able to use them in a mobo of their choice, or to upgrade an existing system. You might think that's insignificant, but I can imagine a lot of people looking forward to having the option.