 |  |  |  |  |
How Much Cash for that Cache? AMD do not want you to have 1Mb cache
| |||||||||
|
How Much Cash for that Cache? AMD do not want you to have 1Mb cache
| | |||||||
 |
 |
| | Thread Tools |
16th June 2006, 13:50
| #1 |
| Madshrimp  Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
 | How Much Cash for that Cache? AMD do not want you to have 1Mb cache So what makes, say, a 2.0GHz 4000+ X2 worth almost twice as much as a 2.0GHz 3800+ X2, or a single-core 2.2GHz 3700+ worth as much as a dual-core 4200+, or more than twice as much as a single-core 2.2GHz 3500+? The answer is: 512K cache. What AMD is doing is slashing the prices on CPUs that have 512K cache per core, while leaving the prices on any chips that have 1Mb cache alone.
__________________  |
|  |
|
16th June 2006, 15:18
| #2 |
| Member  Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,738
 |  Cache = cash 512K Cache = OEM machines
__________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II |
|
| |
|
16th June 2006, 16:07
| #3 |
|
Posts: n/a
| *hugs his 4440+* reason is simple, in a pricewar costs are essential and the costs of 1MB chips are significantly higher because you get less chips per wafer and you get more distribution costs AMD preparing for pricewar is confirmed with this move |
| |
|
16th June 2006, 20:53
| #4 |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,738
| Hell, look at Newegg today. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...on=amd&Ntk=all A64 Venice 3000+ $95.50 Venice 3200+ $99 3500+ $114 Am2 pricing is not far ahead. With a $150 7600GT and a decent MB, you will have a damn good system.
__________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II |
|
| |
|
16th June 2006, 21:03
| #5 |
|
Posts: n/a
| considering the use of dualcore by future games, the 805 D still PWNS the low end Venice |
| |
|
17th June 2006, 00:01
| #6 |
| Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| considering that still being more than 1-2 years away, plenty of time to upgrade the CPU afterwards 
__________________ |
|
| |
|
17th June 2006, 13:49
| #7 |
|
Posts: n/a
| well, I enjoy dualocre action right now and there are plenty of people reporting their general windows usage is kinda crappy with with singlecore A64 compared to HT CPUs and dualcores |
| |
|
17th June 2006, 14:41
| #8 |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,738
| I have Intel HT, A64 Dualcore and A64 single core running; except for real multi-thread usage which I do infrequently, general apps seem faster with single core contrary to others.
__________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II |
|
| |
|
17th June 2006, 15:12
| #9 |
| Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| you were referring to games Rutar, not apps 
__________________ |
|
| |
|
17th June 2006, 15:25
| #10 |
|
Posts: n/a
| right now 1 core is plenty fast for current games but in the future when more power is needed the second core gets handy therfore it's more futureproof than a singlecore right now, the benfits in general windows usage are already there |
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| |
