The Coolest said:
If both are CG, I'd probably go for the clawhammer, as it'll get you around 2.4-2.5GHz which is about 2.6-2.7GHz NewCastle, due to the increased cache.
@TheCoolest
Ok, first of all what you are saying is pure myth. Or its a pure AMD marketing hype. As you like it.
There is no way a 512kb larger L2 will bring you 200mhz, even if the manufacturer wants you to believe that.
First of all, check this comparsion out:
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=426
The review benches an 3000+ (2.0ghz, 512kb l2) against an 3200+ (2.0ghz, 1mb l2). This is a full roundup with 3dMark03, PCMark04, Aquamark3, UT2003 and Gunmetal. Guess what he found in every single test...
"Apparently the amount of L2 cache does not make significant difference in 3DMark03 either. This seems to be the norm, and it's not much of a surprise, since both these chips utilize the same architectural advantages."
There are other reviews out there, i know one @HardOCP but i don't have the URL at hands, search for them, they are telling almost the same story. 1MBL2 on the A64 gets you nowhere. Yet postings of fantastical benefits from greater L2size are keeping to show up in the different boards. Most of them have no proof with them. Just show me one lousy url that shows that 512kb L2 = 200mhz...
There are advantages of a larger L2 cache, no question, but you need an application to fit right into the 512kb-1mb range, if the data request stream is below 512 or larger than 1mb than there will be most likely null benefit of an 1MB L2. Of course there are some apps and their associated libraries that fit right into 512-1MB such as all those gzip/gzip/rar/compress benchmarks), giving stupidly low latencies and blistering performance. However, most people don't need blistering performance in WinZip, and as the A64's are for desktop use, opting for a smaller cache means big savings for not much of a drop in overall performance. Smaller cache means also smaller die size, so the 512kb variant will likely overclock higher to 2.5-2.7 while the more complex 1mb brother is mostly peaking at 2.5 and most of the time below that mark. At stock speeds a larger cache is better, but only by a very small margin (and it will never perform like a 200mhz plus).
Now today many ppl start like "but they both have the same performance rating for a reason. My theory on this matter is like this: The only reason is AMD not wanting high mhz NCs to hurt its sales of more expensive high end cpus with 1mb L2 (and dual channel) because the
[email protected] performs faster than the implied rating of 3400+. See, when there is no difference between 3000+(NC) and 3200+ (CG), than one could guess that the 3400+NC is faster than the 3400(CH). And the 3700+(
[email protected]) is not that much faster than a
[email protected]. Or do you really think that the 512 L2 cache suddenly makes up for a 300mhz rating boost when you go from 2.2 to 2.4ghz? This is pure marketing. To find the real rating you need to study the benchmarks and not any labels on the heatspreader.
AMD has problems in declaring the s754 as a value socket while their s939 does'nt perform all the way faster with its dual channel. This indeed does hurt sales as long as people don't jump onto the marketing hype bandwagon. This will change when the first pci-e, ddr2 and nforce4 boards are arriving for s939 but up until then you will get almost the same performance. But if you are an true AMD believer, if you believe in huge dual channel gain, 1MB L2, if you think you can oc the 90nm 939 cpu much further than others, then go ahead and throw your money out of the window
Or dream on about getting the 200mhz boost with the 1mbL2.
There is one rule with the A64: Due to its architecture MHZ dominates larger cache. It also dominates dual channel. You can't compare the a64 enviroment to amd xp or P4 systems, where this is indeed giving you huge performance boosts.
For example: an A64 EE equivalent of the P4 Extreme Edition with 3mb L2 won't gain you that much like it does on the Intel Systems. The world of cpus is not that simple. Both L2 and DC are features for the marketing team of AMD but there are numbers of benchmarks out there prooving that the A64 is not bound to L2 Cachesize or Dual Channel Ram. Performance does'nt scale with those features (at least not in a way that you can say its a significant difference), so as long as you can get an A64 for a good price (and regardless if its an Clawhammer or Newcastle), go for it, but ignore any feature marketing as any of those cpus are beasts for your everyday use.
