The difference between an Athlon 64 3000 or 3200 seems to be the size of the on chip cache and a lot of money. Most general and games player reviews suggest that for most applications the smaller cache makes very little difference.The question, obviously, is what difference does it make in FS9?

FS9 is like any other game, so it's safe to assume that the difference would be very small, only a few FPS. I'd buy the 3000+ and spend the extra money on something else that needs upgrading (videocard, RAM, harddrive).

I don't know for sure but it might make a significant improvement. The on chip caches (L1, L2, ....) are where the most frequently used files are stored, and can be accessed more quickly by the CPU than from RAM. Definitely worth looking into before buying a new processor.David

Up to a point, increasing cache has a huge difference (e.g. the first "cacheless" Celerons vs the later ones that added 128KB, very big difference). As you keep increasing cache, the difference becomes smaller and smaller because there's still room enough for the code and data the CPU needs. Going from 64-128 or 128-256 = very big difference. From 256-512KB is not as noticable. From 512KB-1024+KB is really only noticable if you do memory intensive stuff (huge databases etc.). As applications get more and more complex, they use up more RAM. That doesn't always mean that the CPU works with more data concurrently however. FS98 is happy with 16-32MB of RAM while FS2004 needs 512MB for best operation, but both are equally satisfied with 256KB of L2 data cache. In fact, older 486s and Pentiums (mid-90s) had 512KB of L2 cache, but when the cache was moved to the actual CPU instead of being located on the mainboard (The Celeron/ PIII CuMine era, 1999), they went back to 128/256KB because there was no point in having more.As computers get more RAM (2+GB) there will be a need to increase cache size, but for now, 256-512KB is enough.

JimmiGI hear what you are saying but I thought FS9 was a memory and processor intensive application.I have also been considering the amout of RAM that I should have in the new machine. The debate about this is, I know, endless but are you saying that anything over 512MB is not very productive?

Hi,The bigger cache on the the chip the better. And like David, I would tend to think this could possibly make a nice difference. A magazine that I have here(Maximum PC) claims that it does make a good amount of difference, especially in the area of games. And this is one aspect that allows the slower clocked speed Athlon64 to surpass vanilla P4's(i.e. not P4 Extreme Edition) in the area of gaming performance. Anyway, the RAM on-chip runs at the same clock frequency as the CPU does. When the CPU has to go through the front side bus(the FSB is done away with on the Athlon64 btw) to your DIMM's to fetch instructions, then it is working with a much slower type of RAM. The DIMM's contain DRAM(Dynamic RAM), and the on-chip RAM is SRAM(Static RAM). Static RAM is much more expensive, hence, would be the reason for a significant cost difference. A little something from my Desktop Computer Encylopedia(which is a several years old now)..."SRAM chips have access times that are in the 10-30 nanosecond range. DRAMS are usually above above 30 nanoseconds. SRAM's do not require refresh circuitry as do DRAM's, but they take up more space and use more power."But with all that said, I don't understand your claim to have come across Athlon64 chips offering a different amount of on-chip RAM, unless I misunderstood or there is some new AMD 64 chip that I am not aware of. I have a Maximum PC mag right here says that BOTH the Athlon64 3200+ and the Athlon64 FX-51 have an L1 Cache Size of 128 KB and an L2 Cache Size of 1 MB. And that the difference between them is their on-board memory controllers(which is what does away with the FSB). It says this difference is that Athlon64 3200+ accomodates Single-Channel DRR modules while the Athlon64 FX-51 accomodates Dual-Channel DDR modules.Now, does someone else feel like stepping in here to explain the difference between a single-channel memory controller and a dual-channel? Hehe.Cheers, and I hope that helped a little,Jim

Athlon 64 3000+ has half the cache size of the two you list - the newest & much the cheapest.

The Athlon64 3000+ has 512kb of L2 cache.http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1937http://anandtech.com/cpu/index.htmlKurt M

Benchmarks on the 3000+ have been really good, beating most of the P4 line... Definitely the bang for the buck chip in the A64 line. If you want the kickass one though, it's the new 3400+ - that thing was smoking the P4 Extreme Edition and coming close to beating the Athlon 64FX, which is twice as expensive...

Hi Guys,Thanks for letting me know about 3000+. I was only aware of the two in the Maximum PC mag I have, which are the original releases by AMD.Cheerio,Jim