[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin_tsoi2000 Any more opinions? Again, remember I won't be able to OC too much.

If you're leaving it at stock, then get the 3200+. If you intend to overclock then I'd get the Opty as it should go further than the 3200+ on stock voltage.

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin_tsoi2000 Also, how will the 1MB L2 catch effect gaming performance?

It's unlikely to do a great deal. Depends where your bottleneck is, but it may get you a few FPS extra. The extra cache is really of benefit when dealing with large quantities of info like media encoding, photoshop work etc.

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tytlyf I disagree with Ste, I would get the 144 either way...if you plan on leaving it stock, still get the 144. The 144 will perform the same as the 3200 stock vs stock. But if you decide to overclock, then the 144 will definetly blow the 3200 out of the water, and produce much better performance.

The 3200+ would outperform the 144 on everything at stock?? It has an extra 200Mhz clock speed.

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tytlyf the extra cache makes up the gap.

The extra 512kb of L2 cache doesn't equal 200Mhz. This was just a rating that AMD gave the 3700+ over the 3500+ with the same clock speed.
Here's a test that Mr Mumbles did:
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/59...vs-3500-a.html

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellgy The additional cache means great deal in gaming, It is a big advantage in favor of the opteron 144, Which is very likely to hit 2.8 GHz BTW. The E4 memory controller is older then the E6 therefore it's worse... I have a friend with an 3200 Venice, and it requires some juice for overclock that the opteron is most likely to achieve on stock voltages(2.4 GHz). Good luck!.

It would depend where the bottleneck is for the game. Most new games run mainly from the GFX, and therefore, this is normally the bottleneck.
If the CPU was the bottleneck, then the extra L2 cache would be of some benefit. However, most new games, when played at 1024x768 res or higher will see next to no benefit in having the extra L2 cache.

Here's a benchmark between the 3500+ and the 3700+: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1815&page=6
You can see there's a slight advantage for the 3700+ at lower resolutions due to the L2 cache as the GFX is not the bottleneck. Increase the res though and this will disappear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin_tsoi2000 Thanks Ste for the benchmarks, they were very helpful. What kinda OC would I get on stock vcore and stock cooling on the 3200+ and 144?

It would depend on the stepping that you got for the Opteron. On average though, i'd say that the Opteron would perform better than the Venice at stock volts though. Should hit 2.4Ghz+ with a decent CPU

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tytlyf either way its a good general rule to view the extra cache as an additional 150-200 mhz. At least this is how it played when I tested the differences. The 144 is the better option hands down, stock or overclocked.

Okay, here are some gaming results:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=241&chart=50
If you compare the 3800+ and the 3700+ (extra 200Mhz vs the extra L2 cache) on every gaming benchmark except Doom3 the extra clock speed gave extra gaming performance. The only reason that Doom3 was equal was because the bottleneck is on the GFX in this game at these resolutions, so the CPU speed doesn't matter a great deal.
I do agree that the Opteron is almost certainly the better overclocker, but the 3200+ is the better CPU at stock