AMD Athlon 64 3400+.. Newcastle vs clawhammer

[Ljon]

Does anybody know the pro's and cons on the AMD Athlon 64 3400+'s different cores?
I'm looking for a performance boost, I have the AMD Athlon 64 3000+, newcastle core now.
What do you think about the trade off is in the lower cache for the newcastle(512 l2), but the
lower speed 2.2 vs 2.4 in the clawhammer (1024 L2)?
Any thoughts??

 

[Corporate Thug]

i think the MHZ difference is more important than the cache difference

 

[effee]

Newcastles beat clawhammers from the benchmarks.

 

[BW86]

there are tons of threads on this.
get whatevers cheaper.

 

[robertsmcn]

You will get different answers from different people.

I'm in the same boat as you since I plan to buy a 3400+ in January (who knows - by then I'll probably want a 3800+)

Some swear that the extra 200mhz is better than the extra 512kb of cache and that the Newcastles overclock better.

All I know is that for the longest time, the difference in price between NC and CH was roughtly $100 with the CH being more expensive. One would naturally assume then that the CH was a better/faster chip. Someone said that the CH was more expensive because it cost more to manufacture the chip with the extra 512kb.

Now, however, the difference is about $13 (Newegg). If I do go with the 3400+ I'll probably go with the Newcastle for the extra 200mhz since I plan to do some overclocking.

 

[Ljon]

I was leaning that direction but that extra large cache seem awful inviting!

 

[BW86]

Use search, heres a few

1
2
3
4
5