3500 winchester vs 3500 newcastle

[Cheesetogo]

I was looking on newegg at the 3500 and noticed that there are two, one for 270 and the other for 350, almost identical, excep that the less expensive one was newcastle and the other was winchestor, with everything being the same except for the proccess. My question is this: How much better is the WInchester and is it really worth $80 more?

 

[hundesau]

winchester is not really better, maybe 3% more performance, but the important point about winchester is less power consumption and less heat production. and the winchester seem to be better for overclocking. 80$ is still alot of cash...maybe wait some weeks and watch for lower prices.

 

[fixxxer0]

use a search first of all....and second u can get a winchester retail 3500+ for $250 shipped like i did..... just wait a few days prices are jumping all over.

also, yes id say its worth it if ur gonna OC

 

[Dustswirl]

This might help

Cheers

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Dustswirl
This might help

Cheers

One of the test methods used in that review is bizarre: Both the Newcastle and Winchester 3500+ were overclocked to 2.5GHz (no attempt was made to max out the overclock). The newcastle required a 1.6 vcore to get there, whereas the Winchester required only 1.55 vcore. Despite this fact, the reviewer also raised the Winchester to 1.6 vcore to compare overclocked temperatures. The Winchester (at 1.6 vcore) was still cooler by three degrees at overclocked load, but obviously the true difference is greater. What was the reviewer thinking?! And this article does nothing to get at the overclocking potential of Winchester versus Newcastle.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

It wasn't an overclocking comparison. it was just a comparison to show the 90nm is better than the older AMD's.

 

[Cheesetogo]

bump

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
It wasn't an overclocking comparison. it was just a comparison to show the 90nm is better than the older AMD's.

I agree. But the test methodology muddied the FULL advantage of the Winchester because the tester intentionally watered-down the test method. We are left only with two general conclusions:

It runs slightly cooler at the same vcore.

It generally offers slightly improved performance at the same overclock.

 

[acruxksa]

The winchester required a 0.15v or 10.7% increase (1.4v + 0.15v = 1.55v) wheras the newcastle only needed a 0.1v or 6.7% increase (1.5v + 0.1v = 1.6v) to reach the same Mhz. What does it all mean, squat...Testing individual cpu's is really worthless, to get accurate results, I would think you need to test 10's or even 100's of each type. Individual processor performance is so scattered that it makes reviews like this essentially worthless if they are taken by themselves. Their value lies in the fact that there are many other Newcastle/Winchester comparison reviews out there and for the most part they all say the same general things: The 90nm cpu's generally run slightly cooler or about the same as the 130nm cpu's. There is speculation that this is not the case at higher frequencies and is supported to some extent by the fact that all cpu's over 3500+ are still 130nm

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
It wasn't an overclocking comparison. it was just a comparison to show the 90nm is better than the older AMD's.

I agree. But the test methodology muddied the FULL advantage of the Winchester because the tester intentionally watered-down the test method. We are left only with two general conclusions:

It runs slightly cooler at the same vcore.

It generally offers slightly improved performance at the same overclock.

True and that is something he needed to know if he didn't gather as much. Honestly though bro, I would pay alot less and get a kick arse heatsink & fan for the cheaper one. Then you could OC the cheaper one way past the $300+ one and keep it stable. Problem solved...lol