Edited by Largo, 24 December 2005 - 12:20 AM.
Dual core 512x2 or 1mbx2
Posted 23 December 2005 - 10:16 PM
Posted 24 December 2005 - 02:28 AM
In the amd dual core x2's the lower cache processors do overclock better, I was just giving an example above.
Edited by jrm20, 24 December 2005 - 02:29 AM.
Posted 24 December 2005 - 04:51 AM
Its for this reason that the Athlon XP 2500 processor, which was rated at a clock speed of 1.8Ghz compared to the previous model, the XP 2400 with a clock speed of 2Ghz, was seen as a faster processor because it had a 512k L2 cache compared to the 2400 which only had a 256k L2 cache. The fact it was also overclockable by about six model numbers was an extra bonus.
In reality it all comes down to what you want to do with it in the end. If you want to overclock it then the smaller cache chips do overclock better BUT having said that, not all chips are overclockable an d then the stock heatsink/fan may not be able to cope with the extra heat, plus it'll invalidate any limited warranty AMD/Intel may give you anyway.
Posted 24 December 2005 - 06:20 AM
All the venice core cpus from AMD can go to 2.8-2.9Ghz speeds, but obviously a 3000+ running at 1.8Ghz can overclock more than the faster 3500+ amd 4000+ chips as they have further to go, although in the newer single core AMDs its not such a good comparison as the san diego with the 1mb cache overclocks very well.
All the AMD dual cores overclock well, the intels do as well if you have extravagent cooling as they are very hot chips, the AMDs only need a good aftermarket cooler.
Posted 24 December 2005 - 06:56 PM
Posted 24 December 2005 - 07:16 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users