Quick AM2 Comparison Question

[PaulWuzHere]

Hey guys, I am getting a little upgrade for my system and need a bit of advice. I currently have a 4200+ and am looking at getting a 5600+. I have a very strict budget on this one and please I know I won't have a whole new top-of-the-line system after this, Its a free upgrade. I am comparing two 5600s on newegg, the first is the older 90nm 5600 @ 2.8 with 1M x 2 cache while the other is the "newer" 5600 @ 2.9 with 512K x 2 cache. I will NOT be overclocking as I don't believe in it and do game and converting DVD, music ect. and enjoy a bit of multitasking.

Anyway... which one would be better? Motherboard has no AM2+ support (I believe) If anyone has any other recommendations I would be more than happy to hear them.
Also I will also be ordering a 2GB Stick of DDR2 800 Kingston RAM to pair with the new CPU.

As ways, Thank you!

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

Get the one with the larger L2 cache. Greater cache size almost always translates to better performance, especially when it comes to games.

 

[PaulWuzHere]

I understand the cache will make a difference but is there any other reason? I can't find any article about the difference. There has to be a reason why the 65nm replaced the 90. Is there an architecture difference?

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

Yes, because the newer architecture allows for lower temps and power consumption.

 

[PaulWuzHere]

So, no real world performance gains between 65nm and 90nm? Besides the larger cache that is.

 

[xdevnullx]

if your board is am2+ compatiblt the 7750 is only $60 on newegg as well, I was checking out the two processors you mentioned as well...

the one with 1mb l2 cache is 2.9 ghz, and the one with 2mb l2 cache is 2.8 ghz..

anyone know how much of a difference this would really make? which one would you guys say is better overall?

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

So, no real world performance gains between 65nm and 90nm? Besides the larger cache that is.

Not really, no.

anyone know how much of a difference this would really make? which one would you guys say is better overall?

As I stated before, a larger cache gives better performance more than 90% of the time, and this is especially pronounced on games, which are more sensitive to cache size than other apps.

 

[xdevnullx]

Not really, no.


As I stated before, a larger cache gives better performance more than 90% of the time, and this is especially pronounced on games, which are more sensitive to cache size than other apps.

do you think the increase in performance with larger cache will be enough to negate the faster speed of the other chip though? i was thinking maybe you missed the speed difference in the two.. but 100mhz isnt much difference huh

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

The larger cache is of course a lot better. We're talking here about a <5% or so increase in frequency vs a 100% increase in cache size.

 

[PaulWuzHere]

Thank you very much! You have helped me make my pick. 90nm here we go!

 

[xdevnullx]

Thanks for your help, Rage!

Paul if you havent bought your 5600 yet, check this out too, this is a 6000+ with 2mb of l2 cache, same windsor design:

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=A64-6000CZ

free shipping too, just thought i would give you a heads up

 

[PaulWuzHere]

I wish I would have seen that yesterday lol. I ordered the 5600+ already. Thanks for posting that link, my buddy is looking for one.

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

You're both very welcome. I'm glad to be able to help.

 

[PaulWuzHere]

I got the 5600+ and the RAM. I have noticed a good little speed increase. Nothing to really flip out about, but it is nice to see my system performing better. Thanks for everyone's advice!