If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
64 - 3200?
They have a 3200 with 1 meg of L2 at 754 pins. A 3200 with 512 K at 939
pins. I don't get it. Can someone explain the difference in the pins vs. the L2 cache and I think the 1 meg at 754 pins would be the better one, but why less pins and more cache? Richard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Miller wrote:
They have a 3200 with 1 meg of L2 at 754 pins. A 3200 with 512 K at 939 pins. I don't get it. Can someone explain the difference in the pins vs. the L2 cache and I think the 1 meg at 754 pins would be the better one, but why less pins and more cache? Richard The 939's have dual channel memory for a start. The current 754 edition of the 3200's have 512k of cache, it was only the first release that had 1Mb caches. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:35:25 -0700, Richard Miller wrote:
They have a 3200 with 1 meg of L2 at 754 pins. A 3200 with 512 K at 939 pins. I don't get it. Can someone explain the difference in the pins vs. the L2 cache and I think the 1 meg at 754 pins would be the better one, but why less pins and more cache? I believe the 3200+ (2.0 GHz) 1M L2 754 (which I have) has been succeeded by 3200+ (2.2 GHz) 512K 754, which AMD likely figures costs them less for similar performance (depending upon the application). 754 only does single channel RAM, 939 can do dual channel (but costs more). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
David Efflandt wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:35:25 -0700, Richard Miller wrote: They have a 3200 with 1 meg of L2 at 754 pins. A 3200 with 512 K at 939 pins. I don't get it. Can someone explain the difference in the pins vs. the L2 cache and I think the 1 meg at 754 pins would be the better one, but why less pins and more cache? I believe the 3200+ (2.0 GHz) 1M L2 754 (which I have) has been succeeded by 3200+ (2.2 GHz) 512K 754, which AMD likely figures costs them less for similar performance (depending upon the application). 754 only does single channel RAM, 939 can do dual channel (but costs more). If you are upgrading an existing system. A Socket 754 may be more worth it than socket 939. Alternatively, you can get a system that supports either one such as Asrock combo-z. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Athlon 64 3200 specs? FOR WES MAYBE ? | Paul Wickham | AMD x86-64 Processors | 2 | October 1st 04 09:33 AM |
Athlon 64 3200 specs? | Paul Wickham | AMD x86-64 Processors | 9 | September 30th 04 12:13 PM |
Athlon XP 3200 reading as Sempron 2200mhz with new A7N8X-E Deluxe Bios | Eric Feinstein | AMD x86-64 Processors | 1 | September 30th 04 09:20 AM |
upgrade to 3200 CPU or dive into the sempon CPU? | Anthony | AMD x86-64 Processors | 2 | August 23rd 04 09:53 PM |
Overclocked 2500 Barton to 3200 using my old Crucial 2100 DDR | [email protected] | General | 5 | January 18th 04 10:01 AM |