l2 cache vs. operating frequency

[triskit]

Im trying to decide between the AMD opteron 165 and the athlon x2 4200. The only differences that i can see are the different cores (denmark vs. manchester) and the opteron had a larger l2 cache while the opteron has a higher operating frequency (2*512 vs. 2*1mb and 1.8 ghz vs. 2.2ghz)

keeping in mind that i probably will not be overclocking, what would be the advantages for each side of a larger l2 cache vs. a higher operating frequency? Which core is better...?

 

[meefle]

first of all, if ur gettin an X2, dont get the 4200+, get the 3800+ and OC the .2GHz, u could easily do it (i kno u wont be OCin but still, thats very easy and it'll save u a few bucks to put into something else). The opty is the OCer, so you would probably want the X2 3800+ . If u want 1MB of cache in a X2, get the 4400+ but thats pretty expensive.

 

[shdwsclan]

Addressable cache is great and it will increase memory read and write significantly.

Frequency has nothing to do with processor speed directly, and processor speed is not measured in frequency but many noobs think so...
Its usually measurind in CPI which is cycles per instruction.....
You want to look at benchmarks or the procs....not the freqency.....**** i could get a itanium 2 at only 1.2ghz and still have a faster processor than a cluster of dual cored opterons put together....

BASELINE, you want to look at the benchmarks....

 

[Nitestick]

the 4200+ will outperform the opteron 165 at stock speeds. if you change your mind about overclocking though its a whole different ball game.........

 

[turtile]

Cache is super fast memory that can speed up the CPU if you have higher latency RAM.

 

[triskit]

so from what im hearing:
4200 is the better option if i dont overclock
opteron 165 is the better option if i do

where could i find the "benchmarks" for these processors?