AMD 64 3200+ comparisons

My friend just bought an Athlon64 3200+ socket 754.

He ordered the 2.0ghz with 1024kb L2 cache

they sent him the 3200+ 2.2ghz 512kb L2 cache

I remember reading that the extra cache didnt do much, but i cant for the life of me find a comparison.

anyone know which one is better? or can you find a comparison?

thanks

 

this has both processors in the benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html

 

thanks. That sheds a little light on a comparison with pentium4's, but tsill doesnt compare the 2 athlon64's with different cache and clock speeds.


as I said, my assumption is that the 200mhz higher clock speed will even out, if not outperform the other processor, despite the lower cache.

any thoughts?

 

look through the benchmarks; both athlon64's are in there with a mix of other processors.

 

in the benchmarks, they have a 3400+ @2.2ghz with 1MB L2 cache, the one they sent him is a 3200+ @ 2.2ghz with 512kB L2 cache


the review has the correct 3200+ @ 2.0 and 1MB L2 cache (the on he ordered), but not the same 3200+ that was sent to him.

the current 3200+ listed on the AMD website is a 2.2ghz 512kb cache, which is the one he was sent.

 

oh my bad. i read athlon64 instead of athlonxp hehe. now i feel silly.

anyhow, i looked up some info on the newcastle (the one he got) versus the clawhammer (the one advertised). the cache does little in most applications, and benchmarks show that the newcastle did a bit worse than the clawhammer in some benchmarks, and better in others.

 

thanks i told him he may as well stay with the one he got, since the higher clockspeed should prove more prudent in many cases than the higher cache.

oh well, i'm sure he'll still be happy with it.