"Dr Nick" <> wrote in message
news:qDwcg.50665$9c6.30961@dukeread11...
> hi, I'm wondering if there is a MAJOR difference between the semperon and
> athlon 64's. I knwo the athlons have more cache on the core. but what does
> that translate into real world performance. I've never owned a semperon,
> can anyone who owns one let me knwo how they are?
It depends on the application, in some applications the extra cache makes
no difference, I have a 64-bit Semperon,I would have like a Athlon (cos
it *sounds* faster). Mine is 1.8 Gigahertz with 128k cache (which is
relatively
small) mine has a speed rating of 3000. However if I got the 256k version
it would be rated a 3100 I believe (according to data gleaned from AMD
site) thats just a 3.3% performance increase which to be quite honest I
know I would never notice.
Looking again at AMD site is seems an increase in cache from 512kb to
1MB is the same as a 10% increase in clock speed.
As a rough sort of guide it seems each 128k of cache is the same
as a 2.5% increase in clock speed. So it make some difference
but not significant amount, it does kind of sounds sexier to have more
cache though but in reality you will barely notice it, loads of
other minor adjustments would see similar speed increases and
IMO It is not worth paying for unless the price increases are of
sismilar small proportions.
>
> -Nick
>
|
Similar Threads
