Importance of CPU cache on ArmA performance

[OL 0]

Right,

Basically, I am sure that I need more CPU power to improve my ArmA experience but am unsure as to which CPU to upgrade to. I reckon I can get 3.4Ghz out of either an AMD 5000+Black Edition CPU (2x512Kb cache) or a 6000+ CPU (2x1Mb cache).

Extra cache demonstrably improves things like Super Pi times, but will it improve FPS in ArmA significantly? Can anyone comment on performance improvements from extra CPU cache on either the AMD or Intel platforms?

Cheers!

[rowdied 44]

Go for the C2D E6750 with good ram. I've used AMD for years but when I switched from an AMD FX60 @ 2.8 to this E6750 @ stock speeds, there was a huge difference in playability. Everything was much smoother like a hot knife through butter. Trust me, I'm a diehard AMD fan but splurged on the C2D and was amazed at how fluid everything looked and felt. Plus it's cheap or you could go for the E8400@3.0 for the same price as the E6750@2.66 . Either way go to the C2D cpu.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I'm using a 6000+ non-black edition and it runs arma VERY good.

But it's not only the cpu. You better spend your money for a good gfx card, more ram and fast harddisk drives(VERY important), than buying an expensive intel core 2 duo that can be overclocked to XXXXGHz.

Yes, Intel CPU's are the fastest at the moment, but don't think that arma will profit from this with 25% more frames or something.

MfG Lee

[rowdied 44]

Since you have an AMD MB already, go for the 6000 series then " and save your money", unless you want to totally upgrade then go C2D.

[ArmaVidz 0]

I had the 6000+ and I was really disappointed. But I do like speedy hardware so..maybe I'm a little disciminatory that way.

The only choice you might have to perform really well is say, something like this:

AMD 9600 Black Edition

Haven't been in the hardware scene for a while but if you have a newer AM2 motherboard it should work.

If you want real speed, unfortunately, I think a Core2Duo/Core2Quad is in order.

[BraTTy 0]

I am using a X2 6400+ 2x1mb cache, it overclocks easily but I don't.

I had a X2 4200+ 2x512m cache but traded it off about a year ago.

I used a PIV 3.0 gig 1meg cache for several years ,over a year ago I bought a Sempron64 3400+ 256meg cache that according to users reviews it overclocked easily and was fast.

Well it did overclock nice, stock speed was 2.0 and it ran at 2.6 easily but was a pig, it took so long to open large files I went back to the PIV...it was faster cause of the 1meg cache

The X2 4200+ only had 512 cache but was definately faster than the PIV

Hard to say if having the larger cache will help your FPS in Arma, if its loading large files it should.

My X2 6400+ converts a divx to dvd in a lil over 30 minutes whereas the PIV took 2 and a half hours.

I'd go for the larger cache myself.The shared cache of C2D is attractive also

[-Puma- 2]

If ur mobo supports the new phenomenom (9600 ) like armavidz sayed, I'd go for that. but on the long term u would be better of by just ditching AMD and go for eg. P5K and e6750/penryn. If im not completelty mistaken u can do crossfire later on with that board.

wohoo 1000 posts

[sickboy 13]

IMO at this time:

CPUs:

[*] p4    / athlon64  

[*] Athlon64 / core2duo

[*] Phenom / core2duo/quad

Intel does very well atm; good overclockability, better performance per watt, less heat, and still pretty cheap.

IMO don't waste breathe on AMD until they get their Phenom's straight.

And yes I was a huge Athlon64/Opteron fan. (Opteron is still pretty strong in the 4-way and higher socketamount area)

I strongly believe in AMD's Hypertransport and ondie memory controller. Phenom is just not the answer to Core2 (yet) imo.

Chipsets:

[*] Nvidia 6xx Series / Intel P35

[*] Nvidia 7xx Series / Intel X38/X48

Nvidia chipsets get very hot to my experience, and compatibility esp with Memory is sometimes really problematic. At least on my Ex-650i+590 hybrid board :S

Core2Duo Penryn 6MB and Quad equilevant with 12MB; Both winners atm.

Though I do not know how much performance is better with more cache.

My opinion anyway...

[max power 21]

Regarding the phenom,

My uncle, who develops cooling systems for a living, tested an amd phenom using stock cooling..and I quote:

Quote[/b] ]

Before Xmas I picked up a $210 AMD Phenom 9500 quad core CPU and an ASUS M3A Spider motherboard and I've finally had a chance to run them up.

Before I liquid cool anything I always document their performance using stock parts.

Today, I ran up the system using the PIB (processor in box) HSF (heatsink/fan) w/2 x 1GB Patriot PC8500 DIMMs. nVidia 7200 VGA.

Load test = Prime 95 @ 1024 FFTs/500mins (approximately 80% TDP)

Maximum processor Lid (Intel Cap equivalent) temperature = 57C.

Maximum 790FX NB chipset temperature = 45C.

CPU cadence = 20 x 215MHz FSB = 4300MHz @ 1.1875V.

Maximum CPU power consumption = 68.4W.

Estimated CPU Maximum TDP = 80.5W.

The problem is that he's on his 6th mobo because the 790 series has a defective NorthBridge. Out of the lot, he said that the ASUS was the longest lasting. Still, rock solid stable at almost 200% clock speed is nothing to sneeze at, especially with stock cooling. Using a fast vcard, you wouldn't be able to get away with that, though, and would need to find a more robust cooling solution.

[-Puma- 2]

IMO at this time:

CPUs:

[*] p4 / athlon64

[*] Athlon64 / core2duo

[*] Phenom / core2duo/quad

Intel does very well atm; good overclockability, better performance per watt, less heat, and still pretty cheap.

IMO don't waste breathe on AMD until they get their Phenom's straight.

And yes I was a huge Athlon64/Opteron fan. (Opteron is still pretty strong in the 4-way and higher socketamount area)

I strongly believe in AMD's Hypertransport and ondie memory controller. Phenom is just not the answer to Core2 (yet) imo.

Chipsets:

[*] Nvidia 6xx Series / Intel P35

[*] Nvidia 7xx Series / Intel X38/X48

Nvidia chipsets get very hot to my experience, and compatibility esp with Memory is sometimes really problematic. At least on my Ex-650i+590 hybrid board :S

Core2Duo Penryn 6MB and Quad equilevant with 12MB; Both winners atm.

Though I do not know how much performance is better with more cache.

My opinion anyway...

sickboy i dont have any troubles whatsoever with 680i chipset. that being said they had some probs with 'em earlier, but BIOS updates solved the it. IMO 780i is now more problematic than 680i , because they're fresh from the owen.

regarding the phenomenom, make sure u get B3 stepping, since thats the first stepping that doset have the TLB bug.

[sickboy 13]

@Plaintiff... I say to 4300mhz If many of them run like that on stock cooling....

then I guess I have to take back what I said about Phenom

I must admit that I would find it a wee bit weird to hear they reach(ed) 4300 while the reasons for delay aswell as no real high speed phenom availibity, was that they couldn't really clock it further than 3200mhz

@Puma: My 650+590 become very hot esp considering overclocking. My X38 runs a charm, 500mhz higher fsb, less heat, more options.

Goodpoint about getting stepping B3 though.

[njmatrix 2]

I recently switched oput a AMD 3000+ socket 939 system for a new Duo core 2 2.66 Ghz system that in my opinion sucked nuts. I hate everything about how this runs. I have upgraded my video card to 512 XFX as well as 3 gigs of ram and STILL dont see what i spent all this money on. next round I will definitely return to the AMD cpus.

[sickboy 13]

I recently switched oput a AMD 3000+ socket 939 system for a new Duo core 2 2.66 Ghz system that in my opinion sucked nuts. I hate everything about how this runs. I have upgraded my video card to 512 XFX as well as 3 gigs of ram and STILL dont see what i spent all this money on. next round I will definitely return to the AMD cpus.

I believe there might be something wrong with yer system, or with your expectations, I'll try to explain why I believe this:

[*] It's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of raw performance and simply hard facts. Clock by clock Core2 is faster than any type of AMD cpu (mind the 'clock by clock' ). All reviews will tell you the same

[*] Switching from single core to dual core should give you the feeling of a more responsive system. Especially when you have multiple programs stressing the cpu, or incase of MultiCore compatible software (There's quite some out there, but there's not so much that gives a 100% win)

[*] Single Core games (99,9% of all games) will not run notably faster on a Dual Core CPU.

[*] Don't believe that 100mhz or a few of those, on a 3000mhz cpu or alike, makes any real noticible difference

[*] Same goes for Memory; 512MB is basicly too less to play current games on proper graphics levels. 1024 is usually pretty good/doable, 1536 is usually enough because games have about a GB to use. 2048 starts to become overkill for _MOST_ games. But as said earlier, in Vista  .. the more memory you have ,... the more 'boosted' experience you will get because of it's System Cache.

[*] More than 2GB RAM has basicly no use for ordinary PC Usage, esp Gaming, esp when you're on a 32-bit OS. 3GB or more becomes interesting for _some_ games, and certain programs, or when you use Vista due to it's system cache differences as opposed to XP. And more than 4GB is only supported on 64-bit oses.

[*] Your system is as fast as your slowest component.. kind off. The games out there might rely on RAM, harddrive, cpu or gpu performance. Or any combination of them. As harddrives are usually (lets hope so) the slowest, games usually rely the least on it's performance. This basicly means you will have to figure out where the bottleneck is on your system, and upgrade that part (/those parts). Upgrading any of your other components will not help you in anyway in this situation, because your bottleneck lays elsewhere

[*] Even though harddrive performance in games might not always have a big impact on the game's performance (usually only load times), it can still be a major player in the overall performance aswell as responsiveness of the system (Windows Usage, startup etc).

Did you do a clean reinstall and installed all drivers new/latest versions? As there can be a lot of performance loss in this.

[max power 21]

@Plaintiff... I say to 4300mhz If many of them run like that on stock cooling....

then I guess I have to take back what I said about Phenom

I must admit that I would find it a wee bit weird to hear they reach(ed) 4300 while the reasons for delay aswell as no real high speed phenom availibity, was that they couldn't really clock it further than 3200mhz

Reviewers and such fail to reach that speed because the play with the voltage too much. If they stayed away from that, they too could go through 6 motherboards in one month. The mobos keep failing because noone who was serious about performance was expected to buy a phenom, and so the mobos for it are cheap crap.

[Lepardi 0]

IMO at this time:

CPUs:

[*] p4 / athlon64

[*] Athlon64 / core2duo

[*] Phenom / core2duo/quad

Intel does very well atm; good overclockability, better performance per watt, less heat, and still pretty cheap.

IMO don't waste breathe on AMD until they get their Phenom's straight.

And yes I was a huge Athlon64/Opteron fan. (Opteron is still pretty strong in the 4-way and higher socketamount area)

I strongly believe in AMD's Hypertransport and ondie memory controller. Phenom is just not the answer to Core2 (yet) imo.

Chipsets:

[*] Nvidia 6xx Series / Intel P35

[*] Nvidia 7xx Series / Intel X38/X48

Nvidia chipsets get very hot to my experience, and compatibility esp with Memory is sometimes really problematic. At least on my Ex-650i+590 hybrid board :S

Core2Duo Penryn 6MB and Quad equilevant with 12MB; Both winners atm.

Though I do not know how much performance is better with more cache.

My opinion anyway...

sickboy i dont have any troubles whatsoever with 680i chipset. that being said they had some probs with 'em earlier, but BIOS updates solved the it. IMO 780i is now more problematic than 680i , because they're fresh from the owen.

regarding the phenomenom, make sure u get B3 stepping, since thats the first stepping that doset have the TLB bug.

The 780i is basically same as 680i, there's only a PCI-E 2.0 addition put in a 680i.

[-Puma- 2]

IMO at this time:

CPUs:

[*] p4 / athlon64

[*] Athlon64 / core2duo

[*] Phenom / core2duo/quad

Intel does very well atm; good overclockability, better performance per watt, less heat, and still pretty cheap.

IMO don't waste breathe on AMD until they get their Phenom's straight.

And yes I was a huge Athlon64/Opteron fan. (Opteron is still pretty strong in the 4-way and higher socketamount area)

I strongly believe in AMD's Hypertransport and ondie memory controller. Phenom is just not the answer to Core2 (yet) imo.

Chipsets:

[*] Nvidia 6xx Series / Intel P35

[*] Nvidia 7xx Series / Intel X38/X48

Nvidia chipsets get very hot to my experience, and compatibility esp with Memory is sometimes really problematic. At least on my Ex-650i+590 hybrid board :S

Core2Duo Penryn 6MB and Quad equilevant with 12MB; Both winners atm.

Though I do not know how much performance is better with more cache.

My opinion anyway...

sickboy i dont have any troubles whatsoever with 680i chipset. that being said they had some probs with 'em earlier, but BIOS updates solved the it. IMO 780i is now more problematic than 680i , because they're fresh from the owen.

regarding the phenomenom, make sure u get B3 stepping, since thats the first stepping that doset have the TLB bug.

The 780i is basically same as 680i, there's only a PCI-E 2.0 addition put in a 680i.

they allso added a support for 45nm quad-core.