What is L2 Cache really?

Status
Not open for further replies.

archon45

Baseband Member
Messages
87
Is it better to have a 1mb L2 cache or a 512k L2 cache?
The reason I ask is the difference between the ClawHammer and the NewCastle cores on the Athlon 64's. I read in a review that the 512k has performed better? Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks!
 
archon45 said:
Is it better to have a 1mb L2 cache or a 512k L2 cache?
The reason I ask is the difference between the ClawHammer and the NewCastle cores on the Athlon 64's. I read in a review that the 512k has performed better? Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks!

The socket 939 (Newcastle) L2 Cahe size was reduced because it didn't need as big of a cache as the Clawhammer's because of its increased speed of Hypertransport. Also AMD did this to reduce the processor's die size.
If Newcastles would have had the 1MB L2 cache the 3800+ , which is clocked at 2.4GHz( the same as the FX-53)would have outperformed the FX-53 and since it needs to be priced lower you can see the reason.
 
So, in conclusion, NewCastle > ClawHammer? Just looking for some opinions on which chip would be best ;) As always, thanks again!
 
By, far Newcatle because its on socket 939 and Athlon 64's will be on that for at least a couple of years.:D
 
Oh. That makes sense :) One more annoying question for you then. Adviseable to wait for the ClawHammer core on socket 939, or is it not that big of a deal?
 
archon45 said:
Oh. That makes sense :) One more annoying question for you then. Adviseable to wait for the ClawHammer core on socket 939, or is it not that big of a deal?

Well, if your are patient enough you could wait, I think when they release the Clawhammer its memory controller will be revised to recognize DDR 500 which will keep the Athlon 64 on par with the socket 775 Pentium 4s when they get DDR2 667.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom