AMD A64 3200 clawhammer vs 3200 newcastle

[baboyizm]

hi,
i was wondering if the AMD64 3200 Clawhammer was better than the AMD64 3200 newcastle or wich one is better for overclocking. i know the clawhammer has 1mb l2 cache. the new castle has 512kb l2 cache, but is 200mhz faster. i have an amd64 3000 and would like to return it, but dont know wich amd64 3200 to get. at newegg they are both the same price.
thanks

 

[Lyfer]

I've been told the performance difference of the added 512K cache is about 5%. You decide.

 

[jdogg707]

200 MHZ or 512KB or cache, I would go with the Newcastle in a heartbeat

 

[Jhatfie]

Typically the extra 512k cache only gives that 2-5% increase in a handful of programs and games. So clock for clock a clawhammer is better, but since the newcastle 3200+ has the extra 10% in clock speed and I've heard good things about their overclocking, I'd go with the newcastle. As a matter of fact, I am almost thinking of selling my A64 3000+ that does 2.5ghz for one just to see what one of them can do.

 

[Zebo]

For overclcoking no question the clawhammer. It offers 5% better performance when both processors are at 2.0Ghz speed, this gap widens when you increase both processor speeds to say 2500 Mhz. All things being equal (ie overclcoked speeds) the clawhammer will be faster.

Now if somehow the NC allows for higher overclocks becasue of it's less cache then NC is a better deal. But I have'nt seen any evidence of this being the case. Clawhammer.

BTW if you're overclocking why are you wasting money on a NC 3200+ when the 3000+ is $60 less?

 

[imported_chrisbtx]

In the hot deals forum for the AMD Retail Employee Bundle Program post I've been talking a lot about this and apparantly had bad information on the Newcastle... I'm glad I saw this thread. Now I have to go right some wrong things that were said. Thanks y'all!