AMD Sempron 64 2600 (128 L2) vs. 2500(256 L2)

[dkistner]

Newegg has the AMD Sempron-64 2600+ 1.6 GHz
With 128 L2 cache for $64

They also sell the AMD Sempron-64 2500+ 1.4 GHz
With 256 L2 cache for $68

I've purchased both of these over the past few months for "no frills"
Windows XP machines because they seem a good value. But just for
curiousity sake I was wondering if the 2600+ (128 kb) is the better
processor or is the 2500+ with double-the-cache (256 kb)? Or are they
pretty much the same in performance? It's only $4 difference anyway.

- David Kistner

 

[spodosaurus]

Newegg has the AMD Sempron-64 2600+ 1.6 GHz
With 128 L2 cache for $64

They also sell the AMD Sempron-64 2500+ 1.4 GHz
With 256 L2 cache for $68

I've purchased both of these over the past few months for "no frills"
Windows XP machines because they seem a good value. But just for
curiousity sake I was wondering if the 2600+ (128 kb) is the better
processor or is the 2500+ with double-the-cache (256 kb)? Or are they
pretty much the same in performance? It's only $4 difference anyway.

- David Kistner

Run some benchmarks and let us know the results. Personally, at a guess,
I'd put my money on the one with the extra L2 cache.

Cheers,

Ari

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/