Extra cache worth it?

[PlatinumFX]

Hi!
Im a couple of months out from picking a new CPU for my patiently waiting MSI K8N Diamond. I will get a 7900GT (or maybe GTX) and that will finish my upgrade strategy v.nicely. This will last me until atleast the middle of 2007 when I will move to AM2, DDR2 and a 2nd (or better) gen DX10 card setup. My question is: What CPU to get for now? My usage requirements:

I play Counter Strike Source a lot; and thats about it. Stalker is a long way off and I will probably be on my new rig when it finally shows up. Relevant fact: My 17" Iiyama TFT is capped at 1280*1024 native resolution; so I wont be going beyond this. I very occasionally fire up an old version of Cinema 4D and have a play around. Its version 5 (old) and so definetly doesnt natively support dual core CPU's.

This leads me to, which of these CPU's should I get?

- A64 X2 3800+ 512K Cache
- A64 X2 4400+ 1MB Cache

Will the extra cache help me enough to justify the extra cost? There's not a lot of difference in the clock speeds, and a bit of light OCing could remedy that anyway if there were. If I can save almost £140+ (based on todays prices however); I will take it.

Thanks in advance!

 

[easyrider]

Get the opty 165.

This has 1mb cache per core like the x2 4400 and will overclock nicely.

Problem solved

 

[Boah]

I play Counter Strike Source a lot; and thats about it. Stalker is a long way off and I will probably be on my new rig when it finally shows up. Relevant fact: My 17" Iiyama TFT is capped at 1280*1024 native resolution;

If Counter Strike is really the only thing you play, you won't need a 7900GT, particularly at the resolution you're going to play at. You could get an X1800 or 7800 and save yourself some money.

Its version 5 (old) and so definetly doesnt natively support dual core CPU's.

I don't know anything about Cinema4D, but applications don't need to natively support dual core. As long as it's multi-threaded and can run multiple tasks in parallell, that's all there is to taking advantage of more than one core.

- A64 X2 3800+ 512K Cache
- A64 X2 4400+ 1MB Cache

For games I doubt there is any noticeable difference. For some applications there might be a difference. You could clock the 3800+, but you could also clock the 4400+. In fact the latter was my preferred choice until I read up on the Opterons and model 170 in particular.

With the recent price drops on the Opteron range you might want to consider the same option and clock it; and solve the cache problem at the same time. One important factor in this is of course your motherboard - I don't know how good a clocker it is.

 

[PlatinumFX]

Thx for the rapid replies!
By the time I have the money for the upgrade, I doubt there will be any Opterons left to be had. And I dont want to settle for a lousy stepping. Im not against it totally, just trying to be realistic.

Ill be running CS in max possible quality, HDR and as high as possible AA and AF settings. I need atleast 40+ FPS in hectic fight scenes to be able to play properly; so I suspect a card as good as that will be necessary.

The MSI mobo I have came in the top 3 of a benchmark on Anandtech (I believe) vs the top Asus and DFI offerings (pre SLI X16 chipset). If I need it to be, it should support me clocking it quite well. Ive a Corsair 4000PT 2GB matched set so 250mhz FSB shouldnt be a problem (assuming a well clocking CPU).

 

[Boah]

A lousy stepping on an Opteron is probably one that reaches "only" 2.5GHz instead of 2.7+ GHz - that's still faster than the 4400+, and probably at a better price. Obviously, when time has come to actually do the purchase you'll need to re-evaluate the available options