3200+ Speed and Cache

[Derek Baker]

I seem to have been out of the loop: when did the 3200+ become 2.2Ghz and
512KB, as here
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-416&depa=0
for example, rather than 2.0Ghz and 1024KB?

Thanks

 

[Jason Cothran]

| I seem to have been out of the loop: when did the 3200+ become 2.2Ghz and
| 512KB, as here
|
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-416&depa=0
| for example, rather than 2.0Ghz and 1024KB?
|

The 2.0GHz/1024KB 3200+ is the mobile version.

 

[Early 2 Riz]

| I seem to have been out of the loop: when did the 3200+ become 2.2Ghz and
| 512KB, as here
|
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-416&depa=0
| for example, rather than 2.0Ghz and 1024KB?
|

The 2.0GHz/1024KB 3200+ is the mobile version.

No, I have an AMD 64 3200+ with 1MB of cache, retail version. However,
Newegg stopped selling the retail version of this cpu, and only sell the OEM
version:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-413&depa=1

 

[Wes Newell]

I seem to have been out of the loop: when did the 3200+ become 2.2Ghz and
512KB, as here
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-416&depa=0
for example, rather than 2.0Ghz and 1024KB?

3200+ XP (32bit) = 2.2GHz 512K L2 cache.
3200+ 64 (64bit) = 2.0GHz 1M L2 cache.

Newegg gives your link an error for me.

 

[Derek Baker]

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-416&depa=0

The 2.0GHz/1024KB 3200+ is the mobile version.

The desktop one was also at launch:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-02.html

 

[Derek Baker]

3200+ XP (32bit) = 2.2GHz 512K L2 cache.
3200+ 64 (64bit) = 2.0GHz 1M L2 cache.

Newegg gives your link an error for me.

For me too now: they seemed to have changed it. Possibly they jumped the
gun?

See here for 512KB/2.2Ghz Athlon 64 3200+s:

http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/product.php?productid=17029&cat=525

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/amd_64_bit.html

 

[Derek Baker]

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-416&depa=0

For me too now: they seemed to have changed it. Possibly they jumped
the gun?

See here for 512KB/2.2Ghz Athlon 64 3200+s:

http://www.overclock.co.uk/customer/product.php?productid=17029&cat=525

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/amd_64_bit.html

See here: http://tinyurl.com/3y5wz for someone else who saw it at newegg.

"754 3200+ 2.2Ghz 512KB $282.00"

 

[johny]

I think its a mistake, there is no such processor. A64 3000+ has 512K L2
Cache and runs at 2.0GHZ, A64 3200+ also runs at 2.0GHZ, but has 1MB of L2
Cache and thats what gives it 200+. Besides, what would be a good reason for
newegg not to have it in sale anymore? I have Retail A64 3200+ and its
2.0GHZ, 1MB L2 Cache.
Do you have or know somebody who has A64 3200+ that runs at 2.2GHZ and has
512K Cache?

 

[Jason Cothran]

| I think its a mistake, there is no such processor. A64 3000+ has 512K L2
| Cache and runs at 2.0GHZ, A64 3200+ also runs at 2.0GHZ, but has 1MB of L2
| Cache and thats what gives it 200+. Besides, what would be a good reason
for
| newegg not to have it in sale anymore? I have Retail A64 3200+ and its
| 2.0GHZ, 1MB L2 Cache.
| Do you have or know somebody who has A64 3200+ that runs at 2.2GHZ and has
| 512K Cache?
|
|

I have built a few 2.2GHz/512KB cache machines for people on the Athlon
3200+. Apparently all AMD is now producing is that version of the chip.
AMD's site doesn't list a desktop 3200+ @ 2.0GHz/1MB cache. It apparently
was changed shortly after introduction. The only desktop with 1MB of cache
they list as making is the 3700+. Here's the link (watch for wrapping):

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^10248,00.html

 

[johny]

Hmmm, interesting, there is actualy two different A64 3200+Processors. 2.2
w/512K and 2.0 w/1MB. Outpost.com has both in sale.
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed Processor - ADA3200AXBOX

AMD Athlon 64 Processor :
Outpost #: 4035562
a.. CPU Speed: 2.2GHz
a.. Cache: 512K
a.. Bus Speed: 800MHz
This one for $319

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed Processor - ADA3200BOX

AMD Athlon 64 Processor :
Outpost #: 3793666
a.. CPU Speed: 2.0GHz
a.. Cache: 1152K
a.. Bus Speed: 800MHz


This one for $299

It'd be interesting to see benchmark for these two, which one
performs better.

 

[Derek Baker]

Hmmm, interesting, there is actualy two different A64
3200+Processors. 2.2 w/512K and 2.0 w/1MB. Outpost.com has both in
sale. AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed Processor - ADA3200AXBOX

AMD Athlon 64 Processor :
Outpost #: 4035562
a.. CPU Speed: 2.2GHz
a.. Cache: 512K
a.. Bus Speed: 800MHz
This one for $319

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed Processor - ADA3200BOX

AMD Athlon 64 Processor :
Outpost #: 3793666
a.. CPU Speed: 2.0GHz
a.. Cache: 1152K
a.. Bus Speed: 800MHz


This one for $299

It'd be interesting to see benchmark for these two, which
one performs better.

I'd like to see benchmarks too; AMD seems to have slipped the new chip out
very quietly

 

[goblin]

I'd like to see benchmarks too; AMD seems to have slipped the new chip
out very quietly

The 2.2 will perform better. I've had my 3200+/1ML2 running at 2.2 for
several months. I filled the 3rd ram slot (754) which cuts the ram speed
in half but the extra 200 mhz is quite a bit faster than doubling ram
speed.

 

[Derek Baker]

The 2.2 will perform better. I've had my 3200+/1ML2 running at 2.2 for
several months. I filled the 3rd ram slot (754) which cuts the ram
speed in half but the extra 200 mhz is quite a bit faster than
doubling ram speed.

Yeah, but halving main memory speed is a bit different from halving cache
size.

 

[goblin]

Yeah, but halving main memory speed is a bit different from halving
cache size.

You have a point there. I've just noticed that an extra 200 mhz of
64-bits is a boost I never saw proportionately out of any 32-bitter so I
don't think twice the cache would outdue an overclock either. Based on
AMD's price difference of cache vs clock, I don't see the cache making
that much difference or they would have reflected it in the price. 200
mhz more is a big jump in price.

 

[Jason Cothran]

| |
| > goblin wrote:
| >> | >>
| >>> johny wrote:
| >>>> Hmmm, interesting, there is actualy two different A64
| >>>> 3200+Processors. 2.2 w/512K and 2.0 w/1MB. Outpost.com has both in
| >>>> sale. AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed Processor - ADA3200AXBOX
| >>>>
| >>>> AMD Athlon 64 Processor :
| >>>> Outpost #: 4035562
| >>>> a.. CPU Speed: 2.2GHz
| >>>> a.. Cache: 512K
| >>>> a.. Bus Speed: 800MHz
| >>>> This one for $319
| >>>>
| >>>> AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed Processor - ADA3200BOX
| >>>>
| >>>> AMD Athlon 64 Processor :
| >>>> Outpost #: 3793666
| >>>> a.. CPU Speed: 2.0GHz
| >>>> a.. Cache: 1152K
| >>>> a.. Bus Speed: 800MHz
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>> This one for $299
| >>>>
| >>>> It'd be interesting to see benchmark for these two,
| >>>> which one performs better.
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>> I'd like to see benchmarks too; AMD seems to have slipped the new
| >>> chip out very quietly
| >>>
| >>
| >> The 2.2 will perform better. I've had my 3200+/1ML2 running at 2.2
| >> for several months. I filled the 3rd ram slot (754) which cuts the
| >> ram speed in half but the extra 200 mhz is quite a bit faster than
| >> doubling ram speed.
| >
| > Yeah, but halving main memory speed is a bit different from halving
| > cache size.
| >
|
| You have a point there. I've just noticed that an extra 200 mhz of
| 64-bits is a boost I never saw proportionately out of any 32-bitter so I
| don't think twice the cache would outdue an overclock either. Based on
| AMD's price difference of cache vs clock, I don't see the cache making
| that much difference or they would have reflected it in the price. 200
| mhz more is a big jump in price.


When I OC my 2GHz/1MB 3200+ to 2.2, I "feel" no difference, and see very
little difference on benchmarks. Unfortunately, I don't have a "stock"
2.2/512MB to compare it to. It would really depend on how dependent your
apps are on raw MHz, but for most instances, I would think the increased
cache would result in higher overall performance.

 

[neil s]

You have a point there. I've just noticed that an extra 200 mhz of
64-bits is a boost I never saw proportionately out of any 32-bitter so I
don't think twice the cache would outdue an overclock either. Based on
AMD's price difference of cache vs clock, I don't see the cache making
that much difference or they would have reflected it in the price. 200
mhz more is a big jump in price.

I've had my 3200+(1gig cache) 64 at 2.2 since the day I got it home...She
is watered now with 20c differnce (cooler)in temp now compared to the crap
retail hsf sent with cpu ......

 

[goblin]

| |
| > goblin wrote:
| >> | >>
| >>> johny wrote:
| >>>> Hmmm, interesting, there is actualy two different A64
| >>>> 3200+Processors. 2.2 w/512K and 2.0 w/1MB. Outpost.com has both
| >>>> in
| >>>> sale. AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed Processor - ADA3200AXBOX
| >>>>
| >>>> AMD Athlon 64 Processor :
| >>>> Outpost #: 4035562
| >>>> a.. CPU Speed: 2.2GHz
| >>>> a.. Cache: 512K
| >>>> a.. Bus Speed: 800MHz
| >>>> This one for $319
| >>>>
| >>>> AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed Processor - ADA3200BOX
| >>>>
| >>>> AMD Athlon 64 Processor :
| >>>> Outpost #: 3793666
| >>>> a.. CPU Speed: 2.0GHz
| >>>> a.. Cache: 1152K
| >>>> a.. Bus Speed: 800MHz
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>> This one for $299
| >>>>
| >>>> It'd be interesting to see benchmark for these two,
| >>>> which one performs better.
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>> I'd like to see benchmarks too; AMD seems to have slipped the new
| >>> chip out very quietly
| >>>
| >>
| >> The 2.2 will perform better. I've had my 3200+/1ML2 running at 2.2
| >> for several months. I filled the 3rd ram slot (754) which cuts the
| >> ram speed in half but the extra 200 mhz is quite a bit faster than
| >> doubling ram speed.
| >
| > Yeah, but halving main memory speed is a bit different from halving
| > cache size.
| >
|
| You have a point there. I've just noticed that an extra 200 mhz of
| 64-bits is a boost I never saw proportionately out of any 32-bitter
| so I don't think twice the cache would outdue an overclock either.
| Based on AMD's price difference of cache vs clock, I don't see the
| cache making that much difference or they would have reflected it in
| the price. 200 mhz more is a big jump in price.


When I OC my 2GHz/1MB 3200+ to 2.2, I "feel" no difference, and see
very little difference on benchmarks. Unfortunately, I don't have a
"stock" 2.2/512MB to compare it to. It would really depend on how
dependent your apps are on raw MHz, but for most instances, I would
think the increased cache would result in higher overall performance.

Most of my usage is in audio compression but just manipulating windows
is snappier for me. I can feel the difference but when I OC my Athlon32
2400+ to 2.2 GHz I don't feel any real boost there. I've not run any
benchmark comparisons but things like audio encoding and ray tracing do
show an improvement in encoding time. MP3 encoding jumps from 180MB/min
to 200.

Considering the smaller percentage of bits that would fall into the L2 I
don't see where it would make much difference. L2 is only used when
needed but raw clock speed affects every single bit all the time. I
still think the price gives away just how useful the extra L2 is.


It may be that a lot of the boost I am seeing is additional ram, 1G vs
1.5G, for the only way for me to OC is by adding/removing the 3rd ram
stick; there is a disadvantage there -- slower clock w/ less ram vs
faster clock w/ 50% more ram, and that seem to be what's happening since
you don't see any performance boost.

 

[goblin]

I've had my 3200+(1gig cache) 64 at 2.2 since the day I got it
home...She is watered now with 20c differnce (cooler)in temp now
compared to the crap retail hsf sent with cpu ......

Mine runs at 46c with the retail hsf. My Athlon32 2400+ is the silicon
furnace... it's been up to 70c at times but keeps on ticking. Shouldn't
you be able to get more than 2.2 if it's watercooled? Mine will go to
2.24 then locks up quickly. I could probably run DOS programs stable
at 2.24 but nothing else. Mine actually runs stable at 2.22 but I feel
safer with it left at 2.20. Also, I had to increase the cpu voltage by
..1V to get it to OC at all.

 

[johny]

Please explain that. How does filling 3rd ram slot, cut the rem speed in
half? Does the ram perform as Dual Channel if you only have two sticks, but
if you have 1 or 3, it runs as Single Channel? And if so, is it a chipset
thing, cpu, mobo? I'm running my A64 on MSI K8T Neo FIS2R with two sticks of
RAM, is it running as dual channel?


GOBLIN WROTE:
It may be that a lot of the boost I am seeing is additional ram, 1G vs
1.5G, for the only way for me to OC is by adding/removing the 3rd ram
stick; there is a disadvantage there -- slower clock w/ less ram vs
faster clock w/ 50% more ram, and that seem to be what's happening since
you don't see any performance boost.

I say:
Seems to me like Goblin is saying totaly the opposite here. Adding 3rd stick
of RAM makes the memory run faster "higher clock freq."? did I miss
something here?