News:

Tekforums.net - The improved home of Tekforums! :D

Main Menu

Cache vs CPU Speed

Started by M3ta7h3ad, August 02, 2007, 14:48:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

M3ta7h3ad

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)

Clock'd 0Ne

I would have thought at those speeds cache would be far more useful. Plus you can always overclock.

M3ta7h3ad

tiz what i thought :) currently on hold with bloody aria... clicked checkout without checking the darn specs of the thing i bought. lol

SteveF

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.

M3ta7h3ad

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

knighty

iirc the difference between 128kb and 256kb is pretty big :o