AMD CPU's

[DruidAT]

What is the difference between these CPU's. I know that the San Diego and Clawhammer both have twice the L2 Cache as the Venice Series but there are differences in the San Diego and Clawhammer are the Process Type and Voltage.
Which would be better for a future rig.

 

[mwmorph]

Venice=new memory controller to run 4 sticks of ram better, 90nm SOI process.
San Deigo=new memory controller to run 4 sticks of ram better, 90nm SOI process. Double the cache.
Claw Hammer=Old Winchester style memory controller, 130nm process. Double The cache.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
Venice=new memory controller to run 4 sticks of ram better, 90nm SOI process.
San Deigo=new memory controller to run 4 sticks of ram better, 90nm SOI process. Double the cache.
Claw Hammer=Old Winchester style memory controller, 130nm process. Double The cache.

Clawhammer's memory controller is even older than Winchesters. Clawhammer was the original A64.

-Kevin

 

[dguy6789]

If you have a choice of a core, here they are from best to worst

Toldeo, Manchester, San Diego, Venice, Winchester, Clawhammer, Sledgehammer, Newcastle.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
Venice=new memory controller to run 4 sticks of ram better, 90nm SOI process.
San Deigo=new memory controller to run 4 sticks of ram better, 90nm SOI process. Double the cache.
Claw Hammer=Old Winchester style memory controller, 130nm process. Double The cache.

Not quite

Venice = 90nm DSL process (Dual stress liner) 4 sticks of ram at DDR400 2T
San Diego = 90nm SS process (Strained silicon) 4 sticks of ram at DDR400 2T
Claw Hammer = 130nm SOI process (Silicon on Insulator) 4 sticks of ram at DDR333 2T

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
If you have a choice of a core, here they are from best to worst

Toldeo, Manchester, San Diego, Venice, Winchester, Clawhammer, Sledgehammer, Newcastle.

Toledo = San Diego (Toledo is the same core tech as San Diego with 2x cores)
Manchester = Venice (Manchester is the same core tech as Venice with 2x cores)

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: dguy6789
If you have a choice of a core, here they are from best to worst

Toldeo, Manchester, San Diego, Venice, Winchester, Clawhammer, Sledgehammer, Newcastle.

Toledo = San Diego (Toledo is the same core tech as San Diego with 2x cores)
Manchester = Venice (Manchester is the same core tech as Venice with 2x cores)

Exactly, but two cores are greater than one core. At the same clock speed, that is the order from fastest to slowest of the cores.

 

[Ionizer86]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
If you have a choice of a core, here they are from best to worst

Toldeo, Manchester, San Diego, Venice, Winchester, Clawhammer, Sledgehammer, Newcastle.

If you're buying an old athlon 64 cpu (Newcastle or Clawhammer), do note that at the same rating, the Newcastle is compensated with 200MHz more clock. E.G: the clawhammer 3200+ is 2.0GHz with 1MB cache, while the Newcastle 3200+ is 2.2GHz with 512KB cache

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Ionizer86

Originally posted by: dguy6789
If you have a choice of a core, here they are from best to worst

Toldeo, Manchester, San Diego, Venice, Winchester, Clawhammer, Sledgehammer, Newcastle.

If you're buying an old athlon 64 cpu (Newcastle or Clawhammer), do note that at the same rating, the Newcastle is compensated with 200MHz more clock. E.G: the clawhammer 3200+ is 2.0GHz with 1MB cache, while the Newcastle 3200+ is 2.2GHz with 512KB cache

Remember, when it comes to cache vs mhz that more mhz is ALWAYS better than more cache.

A 2.2Ghz 512K Athlon 64 would be faster than a 2Ghz 1MB Athlon 64.

 

[LukeMan]

another important note is whether they use 90nm or 130nm technology. The older versions(clawhammer, sledgehammer, and newcastle) use the bigger 130nm tech, which uses more power, creates more heat, which is usually a little tougher to overclock. The newer version(winchester and up) are 90nm core cpu's which use even less power than the p4 90nm core cpu's, and can be overclocked higher since their temperature is usually noticably lower.

 

[DruidAT]

I'll head for the 3700+ San Diego then

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: DruidAT
I'll head for the 3700+ San Diego then

There's always dual-core, and prices are falling like rocks. By the holiday buying season, several of the X2 processors should be within your price range.

 

[DruidAT]

I'll decide my full rig 2 weeks before I buy it which will be wintertime sadly enough... by then prices will probably drop immensely, or I sure as hell hope they do.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: DruidAT
I'll head for the 3700+ San Diego then

For the price of those CPU's there is no reason not to get an X2.

-Kevin

 

[Geomagick]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: DruidAT
I'll head for the 3700+ San Diego then

For the price of those CPU's there is no reason not to get an X2.

-Kevin

It depends entirely what you wish to do with your PC.

 

[Addle]

Originally posted by: George Powell

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: DruidAT
I'll head for the 3700+ San Diego then

For the price of those CPU's there is no reason not to get an X2.

-Kevin

It depends entirely what you wish to do with your PC.

I'm in a similar dilemma and trying to decide which CPU to get. For a gaming rig, which would you reccomend? I was thinking of the 3800+ X2 for dual-core; and the 3800+ or 4000+ for single. Right now I'm leaning towards the 4000+ single (SD core)

 

[Gamingphreek]

Read what i just said:

For the price of those CPU's there is no reason not to get an X2.

[/thread]

-Kevin

 

[Shimmishim]

huh? i don't get it.

aren't the 3700+'s like $275 and the dual core x2 3800+ somewhere under $400?

i went with the SD 3700+ because i game... no multitasking at all... why would i spend an extra $100 for a processor that's 200 mhz slower and equal to the amount of cache i have on one core?

to some, $100 ain't worth it...

 

[Gamingphreek]

Because you are getting (essentially) a whole nother CPU for that price. You act like dual core is merely a 200mhz slower single core or something. Did you forget about that second core??

Just wait until games, and drivers, are multi-threaded. You will be sorry when the dual cores simply SLAUGHTER the SC's.

 

[imported_marklar]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Just wait until games, and drivers, are multi-threaded. You will be sorry when the dual cores simply SLAUGHTER the SC's.

For people like myself, that's good advice. But some of the people on these boards upgrade so often that they'll already be on yet another CPU before this happens.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: marklar

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Just wait until games, and drivers, are multi-threaded. You will be sorry when the dual cores simply SLAUGHTER the SC's.

For people like myself, that's good advice. But some of the people on these boards upgrade so often that they'll already be on yet another CPU before this happens.

Very true. You have a good point. Obviously if you are upgrading to a transition chip not meant to last more than 3 months or so, shoot go for the best bang for your buck single core chip you can fine.

 

[Lasthitlarry]

In about 3 months I will probably get a 3700 San Diego.

I guarantee there will be better dual core processors later on, so I am not going to get into dual core until it is much cheaper. Yes I don't spend much on my computer, but I don't have high performance wants(yes they are wants, not needs) as a lot of other people.

I am currently runnin a 2500 barton, 9600xt and have no problems playing CS:S and WoW at 1280x1024

I can, however, see problems playing Black And White 2, whenever I get that, and a few other games that I will want to get in the near future.