AMD CPU's don't have enough cache...

StratosP

Fully Optimized
Messages
1,744
I have been looking at the AMD processors lately and the Intel ones as well and the processors seem to have good statistics, all except for the cache...Intel has a CPU with 12mb cache and AMD has one with only <4mb...

I could be making a mistake though...
but would one use more than 4mb cache?
How much cache would be enough for a person who uses the computer a lot?
 
My guess is that AMD CPU's don't benefit much from all the extra cache. It may have something to do with the on-die memory controller, instead of putting that off on the north bridge.
 
Also, what about Intel's 45nm..AMD has something like 65nm...

Isn't AMD worried about Intel beating them?
 
I'm not sure about the dual cores, but the quad cores I heard were too complicated to shrink to 45nm.
 
No, but it means lower temperatures and lower power consumption. It also could mean better overclocking.
 
Not really, but 45NM Intel CPU's are putting down some really good clocks.
 
Not really, but 45NM Intel CPU's are putting down some really good clocks.

Guess I'll go with Intel for now..but what about cache and FSB?
The higher FSB is better right? Is it the same with CPU cache?
and what about does the FSB relate to the speed of the RAM?


For example..I'm stuck with a CPU with 1333mhz FSB and with 1600mhz.
I'm also stuck a CPU with 8mb cache and one with 12mb cache...

And with memory..if i get like 2000mhz memory would that be too much or would I have to get something like 800mhz for RAM?
 
Pretty much bigger numbers are better, unless you're talking about latencies.

What CPU's are they, and what RAM?
 
Back
Top Bottom