Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Dual core 512x2 or 1mbx2


  • Please log in to reply

#1
Largo

Largo

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
Im not sure which one to get, my friend says that it is harder to oc a chip with a larger cache but i dont know, so feedback would be nice. its good to have more than one persons opinion.

Edited by Largo, 24 December 2005 - 12:20 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#2
jrm20

jrm20

    System building expert

  • Retired Staff
  • 2,394 posts
Not necessarily, but most cpu's with lower cache do tend to overclock better like 512 KB cache processors. The prescott intel chip does overclock well but you need to keep it cool and people usually do that by water cooling. The prescott with 1 mb cache overclocks well with the right cooling. The prescott also has a chip with 2mb cache and it needs to be kept cool also.


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.

  • 0

#3
Neil Jones

Neil Jones

    Member 5k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
In theory the bigger the cache the better performance you'll see which negates the need for a faster processor clock speed.

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.
  • 0

#4
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Also the larger cache chips are further up the range so they usually start with a higher clock speed and have less to go to the maximum core speed.

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.
  • 0

#5
Largo

Largo

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
Ok, so, (sry, the cpus aren't my thing), so even though the price is different they both OC well no matter the size of the cache? is they and pros or cons to having a big or small cache(besides the obvious)
  • 0

#6
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Not really you should always go for the bigger cache as more cache=better performance.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP