An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
The difference is that the CPU's tested are all running at a different clock speed. In order for you to prove what you are saying there needs to be only one independant variable. That means only the cache would be different. That is why I said 4200 vs 4400 and 4600 vs 4800. The only difference between them is the amount of cache. They run at the same clock speed.
I understand what you are saying, and I will try and find an article. However, also understand that clock speed won't make much difference in multi-threaded apps.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
Do you even bother considering prices before saying crap like this? The 4400+ is $458 while the X2 4200+ is $358. Both run at 2.2GHz. All you get for paying $100 more is more cache. Talk about a complete waste of money.
Not complete. Are you saying that AMD doesn't know what they're doing? There is no question that extra cache does help with performance, I don't see how you can refute that. True, it might not be worth $100, but any upgrade in the high-end isn't worth it's full price.
Are you saying that AMD doesn't know what they're doing?
I never said anything remotely close to that.
Quote:
There is no question that extra cache does help with performance, I don't see how you can refute that.
In many cases it won't help at all. Especially in gaming. My point was that the increase in cache is barely edivent in most cases. Definitely not worth the extra $100.
Quote:
True, it might not be worth $100
So, I guess you are agreeing with me? Because this is EXACTLY what I am saying.
Look at 3DS Max. It is a multi-threaded application and falls under rendering (two things you say extra cache have a \"considerable\" impact on). Do you notice how the performance is nearly identical between the CPU's with the same clock speed yet different amount of cache? The results are either the same or 1 integer away from eachother. I'll even quote:
Quote:
although neither application tends to care about cache amounts that much, the 4200+ and 4400+ give very similar performance, as to the 4600+ and 4800+ processors.
Guess what it says for the next set of tests?
Quote:
Interestingly enough, Photoshop CS2 sees very little difference between cache sizes in the Athlon64 X2 lineup
What about the next page?
Quote:
cache sizes between the processors show very little difference here as well.
The extra cache seems to help a little in some of the gaming benchmarks. However, you have to take into account tht the game is being played at 1024x768. While running a higher resolution and the ey candy turned up the increase in the amount of cache would be negligible.
Yet another quote. This time from the conclusion:
Quote:
However, while the 4800+ rules the charts, one should consider that most of our applications did not show much benefit from the 4800+’s 1MB of cache (per core) compared to the 4600+ 512 kB of cache (per core). In the majority of applications, the 4600+ (which is quite a bit less expensive) performs nearly identically to the top of the line 4800+ model.
Last edited by KoolDrew on Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
You basically did, by saying that the extra cache doesn't help. You're saying that AMD doesn't know what they're doing by making it a higher model, and giving a much higher price tag.
Quote:
So, I guess you are agreeing with me? Because this is EXACTLY what I am saying.
Nope, it's not. You said it's a complete waste of money, I just say it isn't worth all of the $100.
Last edited by Josh on Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
