QUOTE(kellefe @ Dec 16 2007, 11:23 PM)
ooh that mean both proc is the same lo izzit ??
but the L2 ---> windsor is much bigger than brisbane~~ will this effect ??
And i see some review that AMD 5000+ with 2.6Ghz brisbane 512X2 L2 , its cache is in high latency ...
Is this happen to 5200+ brisbane also ?
I haven't seen proper performance comparisions of the Brisbane G2 against 512x2 L2 Windsor, only against the 1024x2 windsor. However, when considering the benchmarks, benchmarks which are not really affected by cache also show brisbane at a 0.1GHz disadvantage vs winsdor. Those which are affected by cache, the results really but the L2 ---> windsor is much bigger than brisbane~~ will this effect ??
And i see some review that AMD 5000+ with 2.6Ghz brisbane 512X2 L2 , its cache is in high latency ...
Is this happen to 5200+ brisbane also ?
QUOTE(kellefe @ Dec 16 2007, 11:26 PM)
oooh~~ comparing windsor n brisbane , its L2 is much bigger~~ will the effect the performances ?
so which one is more better ??
currently using 2.7Ghz brisbane~~ i was hope to get 2.6ghz windsor ~~ coz there will be no additional charge if im goin to change~~
is this worth to make the changes ??
Not necessaarily, Windsor comes in 3 varieties, 256x2, 512x2 and 1024x2. The smallest cache is only for the lowest end processor, and the 1024x2 is only present on some of the highest end processors.so which one is more better ??
currently using 2.7Ghz brisbane~~ i was hope to get 2.6ghz windsor ~~ coz there will be no additional charge if im goin to change~~
is this worth to make the changes ??
QUOTE(-pWs- @ Dec 16 2007, 11:39 PM)
Not really. In gaming and multimedia, cache can make a 10% difference or more when comparing at the same clockspeed. This is why C2D is murdering AMD when it comes to benchmarks. In every other area, it doesn't look so bad.
Dec 17 2007, 06:22 AM

Quote
0.0287sec
0.69
6 queries
GZIP Disabled