AMD Athlon64 3300+ has 256MB L2 cache?!?

[Suggs]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1099386063071&skuId=6968944&productCategoryId=cat01172&type=product

I bought this computer (HP a810n) one week ago, and have one week left to return it, so I need advice. I am very concerned about the 256MB L2 cache of this supposed Athlon64. Is the 256MB L2 cache something to stay away from? All other Athlon64 I see have either 512MB or 1024MB L2 cache. Then again, all other Athlon64 systems seem to be at least $300 higher in price, and I really don't know that I can afford that right now.

Someone said that maybe AMD came out with the A64 3300+ line to use up processors that had L2 cache that failed testing beyond the 256MB.

I ran a CPU benchmark program from AMD (N-bench) and it had an overall score of 2833, which seemed to compare mid-range with other AMD sets, including those with the normal L2 cache like the A64 3200+.

Intended use would be used for games, of course, but also largely for editing video from my camcorder with analog connections. (My Sony Digital8 has a broken DV connection.)

[Deagle]

The Athlon64 3300+ with 256KB cache is pretty what a Sempron is to an Athlon XP. Same core but half the cache. I strongly believe that gaming and video editing will benefit from more cache.

[Suggs]

That's pretty much what I was afraid of. It's otherwise nice to think I could actually get into Athlon64, with this 3300+ version, for the $650 price range, rather than $1000 price tag. But I don't want to saddle myself with something I'll regret having bought. This is my first full system upgrade in five years, so it's not like I envision getting a replacement every year or so.

I bought an ATI All-In-Wonder 128MB video card for this computer, then video editing with Pinnacle Studio 8, and at times it crawls. I was wondering if that is totally indicative of the 3300+ with its 256KB L2 cache, or more that I need to get more memory than the 512MB that came with the system.

Or there may be no practical solution except to return this $650 computer and get a 3200+ (at least) with 512MB L2.

I have other people telling me that I should get the aging P4 3.2GHz with HyperThreading to do the video editing. At least that has 1MB L2 cache...

[bassman]

I think you need to re-consider the need for a 64bit processor. Since you are not using a 64bit OS or editing prog, the added cost of this level processor is a wasted to you.
The most bang for the buck would be the fastest 32 bit proc and more ram ;)

Good luck

[Suggs]

Thanks, that actually makes sense, I must now admit. I had been thinking that for $650 I could buy tomorrow's technology and be ready for the 64 bit Windows when it is ready in the next year or two. But in thinking more about it, I may not be in such a need to be the first on my block to get in on the new OS right away, nevermind get updated versions of all my software and games for it to matter.

The reason for my buying the Athlon64 3300+ when I did was that it was offered as an upgrade option at the retailer, whereby for $80 more I would have the Athlon64 3300+ (64 bit ready, but only 256KB L2 cache) and a DVD writer, instead of the $579 Athlon XP (32 bit, but with a 512KB L2 cache) with only a CD writer. Seemed like a good deal to me, except for the crippled cache.

On a side note, in my first attempt at making a DVD on this A64 3300+, it has so far been rendering for eight hours as I write this and the Pinnacle Studio 8 graph is indicating that it might be almost half done with the process. Nice. The combination of the 256KB L2 is a major factor, I would figure, but so would the only 512MB memory (counting the 128MB ATI video card memory) and the fact that I only have the one 160GB hard drive in there so far. I realize that a better scenario, whether or not I keep this particular computer, would be to have at least 1GB memory, two hard drives of at least 7200rpm (I'm not getting into RAID), and a processor with either 512KB or 1MB L2 cache. The hard drive and memory I could add for the cost of getting a different computer with more cache (like the P4 3.2GHz w/HT, maybe?), but the L2 cache would be my ball and chain for as long as I have this computer with this processor.

Any additional feedback from one and all would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again.

[Paleo Pete]

I tend to agree with bassman, it's a bit early to get into 64 bit systems, since not much software support for them is out there yet. Once it is available, it will be 6 months of headaches until the bugs are worked out, as I'm sure most will remember from win98...ME...2000...XP...every version of IE since it was dreamed up...But for now, software support just isn't there yet, especially in the area of third party programs like your video editing software and most games.

If you want to get one to be ready when it gets here, I'd say go for the higher cache in view of the performance boost. For now, what to get is a toss up. The AMD chips seem to be preferred for gaming while the Intel has always been known as a workhorse, which is good for video and graphics, but lags behind in gaming. For some of the newer games, the video card is more likely to be the main issue, CPU speeds in current machines should generally be capable of handling most games, and a GB of RAM would handle the video end much better.

My opinion though, is if you want a machine that will perform, it probably won't be the bargain buy down at Circuit City, sorry but that's the way it works. To get a real performer the price tag will be a bit bigger...

[saphalline]

The Athlon64 has many more attractive features than just its 64-bit capability! It also has an onboard memory controller and a shorter pipeline depth vs the P4. The shorter pipeline depth makes it a better game performer, but also makes it lag behind the P4 in certain content creation apps (anything optimized for SSE1/2/3 is going to perform better on the P4). The shorter pipeline depth also means the Athlon64's architecture takes less of a performance hit from having less cache, so 256KB is enough, and 512KB is better.

The other thing to keep in mind is that AMD's performance numbering scheme really does scale well with others in the same category. For instance, your 3300+ has 256KB of L2 cache and runs at 2.4GHz, while the 3400+ has 512KB of L2 cache and runs at the same 2.4GHz. You can see that according to AMD, doubling your L2 cache size gets you only 100 more "performance marks". Now certainly games and other apps will like to have the full 512KB of L2 cache, but the overall performance rating of your CPU is still quite good compared to the other Athlon64's.

The biggest thing holding back that HP's gaming performance is the onboard video! Obviously that will need to be upgraded before you can see any kind of performance increase in either games or video editing. Even the lowly GeForce FX 5200 would be many times better than onboard video.

[Suggs]

Thanks, Saphalline.

OK, if I installed a good 256MB video card (nVidia or ATI) for gaming (good for video editing, too?) and installed more memory to give it a total of 1.5GB of PC3200, would you then say this Athlon 64 3300+ computer would be a wise investment at $659 (which included 17" monitor and cheapo printer)?

Or would I regret not having spent an additional $400 for the $1,049 package, with something like the Athlon 64 3200+ or 3400+ with the higher L2 cache of 512KB or 1MB?

[saphalline]

The playing field for CPU's is so complex these days that we could go back and forth forever! L2 cache here, FSB there, micron/nanometer process size, pipeline depth, number of execution units, core speed vs IPC, socket designs, RAM bandwidth, instruction sets - the list goes on and on! :eek:

In the end, I don't think it really matters. And I definitely don't think that spending another $400 to get a PC with a slower A64 (but larger L2 cache) is really worth it. Your 3300+ runs at 2.4GHz, which is almost as fast as my aging P4! You've got more than enough raw CPU power at your disposal to chew through any modern computing task. Games will bow down to your CPU's prowess, and while content creation apps aren't optimized for the A64 there's no reason it can't do it! I mean, really, that 3300+ would be roughly equal to a P4 Prescott at 3.2GHz (maybe higher), and the fact that I can edit digital video just fine on my old P4 OC'ed at 2.6GHz just seals the deal. We are in a golden age of processing power, where we all have more than enough to slather around! No matter if your A64 has a smallish L2 cache, I still think $400 can be better spent elsewhere.

Which leads into your other questions! :D Yes, definitely stick with what you've got and do some upgrades. Add more RAM, get a real video card :p and then show off your PC's gaming performance to your neighbor who spent the extra $400 and got a "high-end" system with onboard video. :rolleyes: Those systems made by HP and Compaq and Gateway and all the others just gouge people on upgrades! It's horrible! Want more RAM? Oh here you go, spend another $400 for a system with more RAM and a DVD burner and a larger hard drive and a faster CPU and... Well, what if you just want more RAM? Balance is always the key for system design. A Celeron D with 1GB of RAM and a good vid card is gonna blow past a high-speed P4 with 256MB of RAM and onboard video when it comes to games! Make good use of this example - always buy mid-range or lower, and then upgrade (especially if you aren't yet comfortable with building your own computer).

So, before you go shopping, how much more do you want to spend on upgrades? Also, before you start picking out parts, you'll have to look inside your new HP (or read the manual) and find out what kind of slots you have. For your vid card upgrade, do you have an AGP slot in there? For your RAM upgrade, how many open RAM slots do you have? My guess is that you've got an 8x AGP slot for your vid card, and one more open RAM slot, but double-check that to be sure. Once you know what you have and how much you want to spend, we can start picking out parts! :) That's the part I like. :D