Originally Posted by Wankerfx
It's funny how the E2140 can overclock to 3.2ghz on stock volts, and will perform just as well has an E4300 with games.
The E2140 has the best price
erformance ratio, but if you want to hit 3.4ghz, get the E2160.
That's just not true man
, cpu cache does
affect gaming performance, and other things as well. You can't go by one benchmark, that as far as I can tell, tests OpenGL and polygon performance. That's the problem with benchmarks, they don't usually tell you jack in my book. This is just one of many examples you could find of real world performance- http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=651&p=3
. Couple of things I notice here: Some games, the cache doesn't seem to make much difference, others it does. Now I'm the first guy who comes up and says, "well man, over a certain fps there's no difference in gameplay", and that's true here, 100fps is beautiful. For someone who already owns that cpu, I'd say your fine for gaming, it's the bottleneck depending on gpu and settings, but totally capable. But for someone looking
to buy, why not get a cpu for $50 more that won't be your bottleneck in gaming, and yields sometimes significantly higher performance depending on the task?
This is only a few games, the effects will obviously vary more or less with others. Basically it depends on the game, not all of them use your cpu in the same way, or as much. It will also depend on how
you game, like what settings, screen size/resolution, things like that can tip the scales as to which becomes the bottleneck, cpu or gpu. These are just games now and only a handful of them, what will be the effects of having less cache when DX10 and more demanding games come out? More and more people are moving to Vista and soon 64bit if not already, system demands go up and up, should you really get a cpu with only 1MB cache? Most of the load is on your vid card for gaming, but do you really want a cpu that might not keep up and let your gpu fully shine? Some of these questions can only be answered by you, and what you expect from your rig.
A 2160 is a great cpu, for someone on a strict budget, but for someone who can afford more, I just wouldn't recommend it. I have two 6xxx Conroes, and a 4300, and honestly I wish I would have gotten a 63 or 6420 over the 4300. My 6400 may have the same cache as my 4300, but it clocks alot higher too. The 2xxx and 4xxx are good cpu's, they're just not quite
as good as 6xxx cpu's, and won't clock as high on average either from what I've seen.
Should you get a cpu with higher cache? If you plan on getting a quad in a few months, heck ya get a 2160. If you wanna keep it for awhile, think about some things, and weigh your decision.
--Many things a rig does, there will be no performance difference at all
--For gaming, it will depend on game, settings you expect, your GPU, etc.
--For some cpu intensive tasks, like movie encoding for one example, there can be a significant performance increase, having more cache.
--For Folding, especially SMP Folding, there can be a significant performance increase. Maybe you don't even fold, but I mention this because there's probably other things, maybe even games, or will be, that may use the cpu in a similar way. Lemme put it this way, I saw a difference of 18min vs 12min on the same work unit, with the 2MB cache between my 6600 and 6400 being the only real difference. Pretty big percentage of performance increase dontcha think