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.
Once I get some more money, I am planning on upgrading my Athlon XP system to a 3000+ Venice core. Why Venice? Simply because it is cheaper and overclocks better. Even the Winchester is more expensive than the Venice.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
I would have to pick Venice. The cheapest Venice core is the 3000+ which is ussually ~$150. However you can find the OEM package for ~$120 in a lot of places. Ewiz had it around that price last time I checked. These CPU's could overclock to ~2.8GHz too.
The only thing the San Diego cores offer is more cache. Depending on the task it may offer a performance boost, but the cheapest San Diego core is the 3700+ which costs about $300. I think it would be a wiser choice to cut corners in other areas to have an extra $100 to buy the X2 3800+ (~$400).
But it will help keep it cooler compared to the extra 200MHz, and I think it will definitely help in some apps.
Just curious (due to my ignorance), how does more cache keep the processor cooler? And, what do you mean by the extra 200MHz? Are you comparing the San Diego 3700+ to the Venice 3800+?
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
Well, I can't provide proof that the San Diego runs at 200MHz less than another core with 512KB. But I know that my parents have a A64 3200 (I don't remember the core), it has 1MB cache, and runs at 2.0GHz. They also could have gone for a different 3200 that has 512 and runs at 2.2GHz. The extra cache on the San Diego will keep it cooler because it runs at a lower speed. (as long as I'm right about it running at a lower speed.)
Well, I can't provide proof that the San Diego runs at 200MHz less than another core with 512KB. But I know that my parents have a A64 3200 (I don't remember the core), it has 1MB cache, and runs at 2.0GHz. They also could have gone for a different 3200 that has 512 and runs at 2.2GHz. The extra cache on the San Diego will keep it cooler because it runs at a lower speed. (as long as I'm right about it running at a lower speed.)
Running at a lower speed (especially 200MHz) will not reduce much heat generation, if any. And the cache itself has no direct corollation to the amount of heat generated.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
well they say that mopre cache helps the CPU work less. = less heat. But this is only 40% true. Unless the aplication uses 1 MB of cache or can use it like a large game or video editing or picture editing then the CPU will not work less. More cache on a P4 is usefull cuz of the limited age old FSB they still feal they need to use. Lack of bandwidth on there memory and more bandwidth on the CPU memory and they think this works. It dose not. On an AMD 512 duel chanle runing T1 on there cache and the massive memory bandwidth from there HTT makes it so there CPU still works 60% less than Intel .
Ah, thank you PCGEEK for the explanation. So, Josh was partially correct that CPU doesn't generate as much heat, but it only applies when you are using programs that actually utilize the extra cache.
Contributed by Predator, Guest 510 iVirtua Loyalty Points • • • Back to Top
well they say that mopre cache helps the CPU work less. = less heat. But this is only 40% true. Unless the aplication uses 1 MB of cache or can use it like a large game or video editing or picture editing then the CPU will not work less. More cache on a P4 is usefull cuz of the limited age old FSB they still feal they need to use. Lack of bandwidth on there memory and more bandwidth on the CPU memory and they think this works. It dose not. On an AMD 512 duel chanle runing T1 on there cache and the massive memory bandwidth from there HTT makes it so there CPU still works 60% less than Intel .
Nice one PCGEEK.
I feel that newer games like Dungeon Siege 2 will benefit a little more with a 1MB L2 cache, but that is only for AMD CPU's, seeing that Intel CPU's work different & use the cache differently.