Cache vs. Frequency

[kpmwrestler]

I am looking at two processors:

AMD Athlon x2 5400 with 2.80GHz, 2 x 512KB Cache
AMD Athlon x2 5200 with 2.60GHz, 2MB Cache

Is operating frequency or cache more important?

 

[Poizen22]

the 5200 would be faster, especially since you could easaly over clock to the speed of the 5400+, if i where you i would buy a 5000+ be.

 

[kpmwrestler]

Is a 5000+ better?

 

[kpmwrestler]

or is it something special about black edition with 2x512kb that beats a 5200 with 2x1mb

 

[Poizen22]

the 5000+ be has an unlocked multiplier, meaning you dont need to raise the fsb to increase the clock speed, and its 65nm so itl over clock alot farther the the 5200+

 

[veg1992]

the cache is usually just affects Video Encoding speeds for a normal user, but get the 5000+ BE instead of both of those

 

[maroon1]

Note: Brisbane is slightly slower than a similar clocked Windsor, even if both have the same cache

5000+ Brisbane and 5000+ Windsor, both have the same clock speed and cache. Yet the Brisbane version performs slightly slower than the Windsor, thats because the Brisbane chip have higher latencies in the cache than Windsor

AMD's 65nm L2 cache looks to be slower - The Tech Report

 

[Poizen22]

ya but the 65nm 5000+ will oc very very far.

 

[LeftEyeBlind]

How far?

 

[Poizen22]

3.4 easy, 3.6 or more if your good.