Tekforums

Chat => Entertainment & Technology => Topic started by: M3ta7h3ad on August 02, 2007, 14:48:13 PM

Title: Cache vs CPU Speed
Post by: M3ta7h3ad on August 02, 2007, 14:48:13 PM
Got a choice between these two processors...

QuoteAMD Sempron 2800+ 1.6GHZ (754) OEM
800MHz FSB, 256KB Cache       £12.95 (exc. VAT)

AMD Sempron 3000+ 1.80GHZ (754) OEM
800MHz FSB, 128KB Cache       £14.95 (exc. VAT)
Title: Re:Cache vs CPU Speed
Post by: Clock'd 0Ne on August 02, 2007, 14:53:07 PM
I would have thought at those speeds cache would be far more useful. Plus you can always overclock.
Title: Cache vs CPU Speed
Post by: M3ta7h3ad on August 02, 2007, 15:01:58 PM
tiz what i thought :) currently on hold with bloody aria... clicked checkout without checking the darn specs of the thing i bought. lol
Title: Re:Cache vs CPU Speed
Post by: SteveF on August 02, 2007, 15:14:30 PM
it should be cache by miles.

Not following processor specs these days so might want to find a comparison thing on something like toms hardware.  Just in case theres some weird thing in the Semperons architecture that breaks cache.  

But double the L2/3 cache should make a MUCH bigger difference than 200MHz in any sensible processor architecture.
Title: Cache vs CPU Speed
Post by: M3ta7h3ad on August 02, 2007, 19:02:58 PM
Yeah that was my thought, just needed it confirming really :)

Soo..

https://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Systems/Barebone/Biostar+IDEQ+220K+Barebones+System+?productId=17986

Plus a 754 2800+ should go nicely :D
Title: Cache vs CPU Speed
Post by: knighty on August 02, 2007, 23:20:01 PM
iirc the difference between 128kb and 256kb is pretty big :o