1Mbx2 vs. 512Mbx2 L2 cache. What are the benefits?

[Salamero]

Ok, as I posted yesterday, I work with resource hog engineering programs and ZERO gamming. I do ALOT of multitasking and often use VR software along with 2-3 other programs + browser. Will the increased L2 cache minimize bottlenecks when there's so many programs running concurrently? I'm still "iffy" on the importance of l2 cache. I got this of the web, is it true?

"Data is transmitted from the processor chip into main memory through the L2 cache. This stops a data bottleneck. L2 cache that's 256K in size can handle the cache functionality for up to 64Mb of DRAM. 512K of L2 cache handle caching for up to 128Mb of RAM"

I'm looking at the the x2 +3800 but worry about what I may lose by not getting the opteron 170 (apart from the extra $80). Is it worth it in the long run? The test run in the link below show nearly identical benchmarks for the two! Am I missing something?

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648

These are the programs I use often (and usually combined!)

IBM VIA VOICE 9
SOLIDWORKS (3D MODELING)
PRO/E (3D M)
MATLAB (multi-threaded computational analysis software)
MATHCAD
AUTOCAD
MS OFFICE
ADOBE ACROBAT
FIREFOX
ITUNES
NORTON ANTI-V

 

[Salamero]

Nobody?... come on, throw me a bone here!

 

[sonoma1993]

it really depends on the applications, some games/apps will use the extra cache while some other apps/games may not or they may perform like 1% better.

 

[Salamero]

But when multitasking,doesn't the extra cache become more important/necessary?

 

[Fallengod]

There is no difference. Or I should say, its negligible. It really doesnt matter, dont make your decision on a proc based on cache.

 

[themusgrat]

Ther is not much difference except in rare cases. If money is any of and object, go with it. I would get the 165, actually I have, because it will clock at least as well as the 3800, and is cheaper. Check out the hot deals forum- it has lists of stores.

 

[Salamero]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Ther is not much difference except in rare cases. If money is any of and object, go with it. I would get the 165, actually I have, because it will clock at least as well as the 3800, and is cheaper. Check out the hot deals forum- it has lists of stores.

I don't plan on OCing so I've got to decide based on stock specs so if the extra L2 is negligable then the X2 3800 is the best choice..I think?

+200mhz & full motherboad compatability......

 

[spacelord]

I chose X2 3800 because a retaill box was slightly cheaper than the Opteron 165's I could find. My X2 3800 is easily overclocked to 2.45Ghz. I havn't pushed beyond that much.. I may need to play with my memory dividers some more to push it over 2.5Ghz.

 

[formulav8]

If you can afford it I would get the bigger cache. It just seems to me that the 1MB cpu compared to the 1/2MB cpu is alittle more snappy/responsive. It may not show in some of the benches, but in the real world under my various usage, it would be worth it. Especially if you decide to keep them for a long time. The extra cache could very well become more important in future applications.


Jason

 

[Salamero]

Originally posted by: formulav8
If you can afford it I would get the bigger cache. It just seems to me that the 1MB cpu compared to the 1/2MB cpu is alittle more snappy/responsive. It may not show in some of the benches, but in the real world under my various usage, it would be worth it. Especially if you decide to keep them for a long time. The extra cache could very well become more important in future applications.


Jason

I plan on this being my processor for the next year or two. So, I guess I should consider the 170 or X2 4400 though that's alot of mula$$! Should I expect prices to drop anytime soon?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Don't expect any price drops on s939 Opteron parts. X2s may come down in price after socket AM2 launches.