| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AMDLUV
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject: Cache or FSB |
 |
|
Im looking at an AMD 64 3200+ for a system im building and i saw that i had some options when it came to the FSB and Cache.
One model had A 1mb Cache and 1600MHz FSB
The other had 512k Cache but a 2000MHz FSB
Which one would run faster? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gshv
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 7898
Location: Fairfax, VA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Cache or FSB |
|
|
| AMDLUV wrote: | | Which one would run faster? |
This depends on what type of applications you will run on this processor. For small programs 2 GHz processor can be faster. For programs that require a lot of memory (like all modern games) 1600 GHz processor with 512 KB L2 cache will be probably faster.
Gennadiy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AMDLUV
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CPUShack
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 34259
Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: Cache or FSB |
|
|
| gshv wrote: | | AMDLUV wrote: | | Which one would run faster? |
This depends on what type of applications you will run on this processor. For small programs 2 GHz processor can be faster. For programs that require a lot of memory (like all modern games) 1600 GHz processor with 512 KB L2 cache will be probably faster.
Gennadiy |
oh oh I want the 1600GHz CPU, even if it has NO cache 
_________________
New for 2025! The CPU Shack has a co-processor!
Visit The CPU Shack of microprocessor history and information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![[ Hidden ]](https://cdn.cpu-world.com/forum/templates/CPUWorld/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}
