Dual core 4600+ vs 4800+

[info2knowledge]

Has anybody seen any data showing both the performance of the 4600+ and
the 4800+.

I'm wondering what effect that extra 512M cache really has on
performance...

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Has anybody seen any data showing both the performance of the 4600+ and
the 4800+.

I'm wondering what effect that extra 512M cache really has on
performance...

On some applications the effect of the extra cache is huge, I've seen a 2
to 1 speed up on some applications. On others the effect is smaller but it
should always be at least equal to one speed grade.

http://www.polybus.com/linux_hardware/index.htm

The best choice for an X2 is the 4400+, it has 1M caches and is only
slightly slower then the 4800+. The 4400+ will out perform the 4600+ by a
lot on some applications, match it's performance on most others and it
costs significantly less ($520 vs $688). The 4800+ is overpriced, it's
less than 10% faster then the 4400+ but it costs much more ($880).

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Has anybody seen any data showing both the performance of the 4600+ and
the 4800+.

I'm wondering what effect that extra 512M cache really has on
performance...

In general terms, when looking at two processors with core frequencies that
are so close, go with the one that has the larger of the L2 Caches.

Bobby

 

[Wes Newell]

Has anybody seen any data showing both the performance of the 4600+ and
the 4800+.

I'm wondering what effect that extra 512M cache really has on
performance...

Depends on the app. There are a few apps it will help quite a bit,
and there are some it will actually hurt. Overall, not much. I'd estimate
no more than 5% if that.