-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Sodding hell. I dont have a conroe after all?
- Thread starter FatRakoon
- Start date
You sure?
have a look at the processors in OCUK and you will see that the 6300 and 6400 are both "Allendale" and that the 6600 and above are "Conroe"
Cant remember what CPUZ says but Im sure that also pointed it out too!
Will need to go and check that in a minute...
have a look at the processors in OCUK and you will see that the 6300 and 6400 are both "Allendale" and that the 6600 and above are "Conroe"
Cant remember what CPUZ says but Im sure that also pointed it out too!
Will need to go and check that in a minute...
Im only going by my own experience here, but Cache after a certain point, doesnt mean all that much.
I mean, ok, I have had 2 Semprons... A 3100 ( That I still have ) and thats got a 256K Cache, and a 3300 and thats only got a 128K one... The 3300 is a severe pile of junk, while the 3100 is useable, even though the 3300 is 2Ghz and the 3100 is 1.8.
I also got a Newcastle thats got 512K and thats very useable.
The difference from 128k to 256k is big.
The difference from 256K to 512k is still noticable, but not as much as 128 to 256
Now, going over a little here, but I also have a 3800 ( 2x512K ) and a 4400 ( 2 x 1MB ). They both clock fairly well, and, at the same clock speed, there is absolutely no difference that I have found what-so-ever.
There may be with certain things like Video Editing etc, I have not really given them THAT much of a head to head, but I am only going on that idea again, where the cache as it gets bigger and bigger, makes less and less difference.
If there is no real difference between 512K and 1MB, then there is going to be even less difference between the 2MB and 4MB of the C2D CPUs isnt there?
The only real way that we will be able to test this out, is to clock both CPUs to the very same Multi/FSB and hit them with "all you got", but to be honest, I dont think there will be any difference at all.
So, there will be no bloody difference between the C2D CPUs there will there?
There are also many instances where the humble 6300 has proven to be the better CPU £ for £ than its bigger brothers
I mean, ok, I have had 2 Semprons... A 3100 ( That I still have ) and thats got a 256K Cache, and a 3300 and thats only got a 128K one... The 3300 is a severe pile of junk, while the 3100 is useable, even though the 3300 is 2Ghz and the 3100 is 1.8.
I also got a Newcastle thats got 512K and thats very useable.
The difference from 128k to 256k is big.
The difference from 256K to 512k is still noticable, but not as much as 128 to 256
Now, going over a little here, but I also have a 3800 ( 2x512K ) and a 4400 ( 2 x 1MB ). They both clock fairly well, and, at the same clock speed, there is absolutely no difference that I have found what-so-ever.
There may be with certain things like Video Editing etc, I have not really given them THAT much of a head to head, but I am only going on that idea again, where the cache as it gets bigger and bigger, makes less and less difference.
If there is no real difference between 512K and 1MB, then there is going to be even less difference between the 2MB and 4MB of the C2D CPUs isnt there?
The only real way that we will be able to test this out, is to clock both CPUs to the very same Multi/FSB and hit them with "all you got", but to be honest, I dont think there will be any difference at all.
So, there will be no bloody difference between the C2D CPUs there will there?
There are also many instances where the humble 6300 has proven to be the better CPU £ for £ than its bigger brothers
Last edited:
I got both an X2-3800 and an X2-4400, and at the same clock speed, but a different Cache ( 512 v 1024 ) I have found very little difference ( if any ) in performance.
It will be the same with the 2v4 of the C2D CPUs
So, does anyone actually care whether its got 2 or 4?
It will be the same with the 2v4 of the C2D CPUs
So, does anyone actually care whether its got 2 or 4?
Robert said:Intel FANBOYS? Bwahaha, this is my first Intel chip after 9 years of using a PC
Same here
Have always used AMD and on occasion tested out the intel Waters, but never been at all impressed.
I get hold of a Fujitsu P4 3.6 and was blown away by just how naff it was, but it was a steal at the price and it was only a couple of months old, so I had to.
Still had the idea that Intels were junk.
That soon changed once I got my DS3
The 3.6 is floating at 4.3 right now, but its been to 4.7.
I have now got a 6300 and a second DS3 but am stuck at this time with poor ram, but still, even at stock, the C2D is a bloody monster.
I still have my AMDs as my main rigs and for the forseeable future they will still be my main rigs, so, I would say that I am still an AMD user over an Intel, but thats purely cos I cant be bothered swapping all my bits round, and the stuff I have on the AMDs is all setup perfectly etc.
Reality|Bites said:Venice 512K- Sandiego 1MB ?????
Still the same chip just different cache. No one seemed bothered by this at the time????
So why the big fuss over a bloody name? the chip is called a bloody core 2 Duo anyway
I think its the old arguement where people with the lesser CPU are often beating the bigger CPU, and so those with the bigger CPU dotn like it, so they need to pick on something, in some kind of vain attempt at justifying the price they paid... Which is a bit thick I think.
I mean, I got the 6300 and its a C2D as you say, its an Allendale, but a few times now, I have mentioned that I got a conroe and I have been slagged down by poeple telling me its not a conroe...
End of the day, I really dont give a frreaky fat flying f. What its called, its still a great CPU and by far, the fastest CPU I have ever owned... Calling it a Lada all of a sudden wont make it go any slower.
So, this is like I keep telling the missus... Its 12" but 11" is disabled.
Like I said though before... the 3800 v the 4400 at the same clock do jobs 100% the same.
Clock a pair of C2Ds to the same Multi/FSB and you will find the same on those too I recon.
Like I said though before... the 3800 v the 4400 at the same clock do jobs 100% the same.
Clock a pair of C2Ds to the same Multi/FSB and you will find the same on those too I recon.