• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Procesors

C

Confusednewbie1552

Golden Member
First of all:

New Castle Core VS. Clawhammer Core

Second of all:

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ VS. 3400+ (socket 939)

Last:

Is there an AMD Athlon 3600+? If so how would it compete with the 3800+.

Edit:

Is there going to be any AMD Athlon 64's (non FX) coming out in Q3?
 
Originally posted by: AsiLuc
What is de meaning of this topic?
If you want info, just visit Anandtech, Xbitlabs or Tomshardware...
Click to expand...


AsiLuc has the right idea. Go visit some hardware sites and check up on reviews of the above mentioned hardware. They will do a much better job explaining the pros and cons than we can with our posts.
 
No, there is not an AMD 3600+. The 3500+ 939 is running at 2200Mghtrz with 512 L2cache with dual channel memory. The 3400+ (754) is running at 2200Mghrtz with 1meg L2cache with single channel memory access. Sledgehammer was the original core for the Athlon 64. The Newcastle core offers so core optimisatoin and memory controller optimisation to better work with dimms.

Usually all else being equal the 3400 wins more benchmarks than the 3500 so it appears the L2 cache makes more difference (the difference is fractional when balanced out as a whole in testing) than the dual channel memory controller. AMD decided that the dual channel memory access deserved a higher processor rating than a greater L2 cache for the same core frequency so

3500+ = 2200Mghrtz 512L2 cache dual channel memory only 939pin
3400+ = 2200Mghrtz 1024L2 cache single channel memory only 754pin

3800+ = 2400Mghrtz 512L2 cache dual channel memory only 939pin
3700+ = 2400Mghrtz 1024L2 cache singel channel memory only 754 pin

Remember, AMD believes their 200Mghrtz increase in processor frequency is greater than 200Mghrtz increase of their original athlon 1000Mghrtz core which is supposedly what the rating system is based on. We all know that it is really compared to Intel though. Going from a 3200 Intel processor to a 3400 Intel processor does not give you as big a jump as going from 2200 AMD to 2400 AMD. Intel believed they could keep the processor frequency ratcheting higher than the proportionate increase AMD could do and vice versa

Of course having the 1meg L2cache and a dual memory controller is quite nice but wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy overpriced currently
 
Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
First of all:

New Castle Core VS. Clawhammer Core

Second of all:

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ VS. 3400+ (socket 939)

Last:

Is there an AMD Athlon 3600+? If so how would it compete with the 3800+.

Edit:

Is there going to be any AMD Athlon 64's (non FX) coming out in Q3?
Click to expand...

if you're talking about socket 939, i believe there should be non-FX A64's being released.

the FX is the enthusiasts chip... costs over $700 for this chip... and most people don't want to dish out that much for a cpu...

i'm sure AMD will release lower speed socket 939 chips then... IMHO
 
Originally posted by: Shimmishim
Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
First of all:

New Castle Core VS. Clawhammer Core

Second of all:

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ VS. 3400+ (socket 939)

Last:

Is there an AMD Athlon 3600+? If so how would it compete with the 3800+.

Edit:

Is there going to be any AMD Athlon 64's (non FX) coming out in Q3?
Click to expand...

if you're talking about socket 939, i believe there should be non-FX A64's being released.

the FX is the enthusiasts chip... costs over $700 for this chip... and most people don't want to dish out that much for a cpu...

i'm sure AMD will release lower speed socket 939 chips then... IMHO
Click to expand...


There are already non FX 939's out. The 3500+ and the 3800+ as per my previous post
Current price estimates

3500+ 939 $490.00
3800+ 939 $699.00
FX-53 939 $840.00
 
No THERE IS NO 3600+ LOL Please refer to my previous post (two posts previous I believe) for all the information on the processors for 939 and their differences to the (new) 754 processor.
 
New Castle Core VS. Clawhammer Core
-------------------
Clawhammer has 1mb lvl 2 cache, newcastle has 512kb. CH is 5% faster same speeds.



AMD Athlon 64 3500+ VS. 3400+ (socket 939)
----------------------
Too close to call.




Is there an AMD Athlon 3600+? If so how would it compete with the 3800+.
--------------
NO



Is there going to be any AMD Athlon 64's (non FX) coming out in Q3?
-----------
NO
 
Ok here's some new questions:

1: Socket 939 VS. Socket 754

2: 512k L2 Cache vs 1 mb L2 Cache

3: AMD Athlon 64 3400+ VS. 3200+ VS. 3000+

Btw, is the 3500+ any good? Or should i pay some extar money for the 3800?
 
(Repost from a previous post for Confusednewbie 1552)
No, there is not an AMD 3600+. The 3500+ 939 is running at 2200Mghtrz with 512 L2cache with dual channel memory. The 3400+ (754) is running at 2200Mghrtz with 1meg L2cache with single channel memory access. Sledgehammer was the original core for the Athlon 64. The Newcastle core offers some core optimization and memory controller optimization to tighten memory timings and better work with modules and have better 1t sucess.

Usually all else being equal the 3400 wins more benchmarks than the 3500 so it appears the L2 cache makes more difference (the difference is fractional when balanced out as a whole in testing) than the dual channel memory controller. AMD decided that the dual channel memory access deserved a higher processor rating than a greater L2 cache for the same core frequency so ...

3500+ = 2200Mghrtz 512L2 cache dual channel memory only 939pin
3400+ = 2200Mghrtz 1024L2 cache single channel memory only 754pin

3800+ = 2400Mghrtz 512L2 cache dual channel memory only 939pin
3700+ = 2400Mghrtz 1024L2 cache singel channel memory only 754 pin

Remember, AMD believes their 200Mghrtz increase in processor frequency is greater than 200Mghrtz increase of their original athlon 1000Mghrtz core which is supposedly what the rating system is based on. We all know that it is really compared to Intel though. Going from a 3200 Intel processor to a 3400 Intel processor does not give you as big a jump as going from 2200 AMD to 2400 AMD. Intel believed they could keep the processor frequency ratcheting higher than the proportionate increase AMD could do and vice versa
The 939 is way to expensive and does not offer much over the 754 other than upgrade path (single vs dual channel and L2 cache not much difference) because all future desktop/workstation cpus will be 939. You could probably overclock the 3500 to 3800 speeds and save two hundred dollars and spend on another component. I would wait if I were getting 939 (in fact what i am doing) for at least a month for Nvidia's 250 939 motherboards to come out and hopefully for AMD to let go of their delusional pricing in check.

The only dumb question is the one not asked
My rig next month

AMD 64 3800+
1024 Cas 2-2-2-5 mem
Ati x800xt plat
raptor 74
the rest from my old rig lol
 
Last questions:

3800 VS. 3400.

If 3800 is better can you overclock 3400 to a 3800, without it being unstable?

If theese questions are answered i'm pretty sure what my processor would be =).
 
Just get a 3200+ and OC to 3700. Board, ram and prcessor will cost you less than $500

Sorry dude 3800 is a 939 which is a waste of money big time just processor is $700.
 
Ok new questions:

Should I get a 3400 and overclock to a 3700 or a 3500 and overclock it to a 3800

Can I overclock a 3200 to a 3700 without it being unstable?

If I can then can I overclock a 3000 into a 3700 without it being unstable?
 
Newbie, not to be rude, but you really need to start educating yourself about these products you're going to buy.

There are plenty of posts here, at other forums, along with reviews at hundreds of sites to get tons of info from. We can give you advice all you want, but there will always be conflicting opinions on what you should get. Take it upon yourself and invest a good deal of time to familiarize with these products you are so willing to plunk down $400+ for. You're doing a lot of apples and oranges comparisons here, and you could end up with a PC that you aren't happy with. Both you and us definitely don't want that to happen. The first step is to learn. Read reviews, look at benchmarks, and decide for yourself what performance you are after. Then, try putting some configs together at Newegg and post them up here, tell us what you're going to do with this PC, ect.

You have good intentions, but these VS topics have already been done to death.
 
I've researched a lot of theese proccesors and I've narrowed it down to this:

If I get a Socket 939 CPU it'll be: An AMD Athlon 64 3500+ and overclock it to a 3800+

If I get a socket 754 CPU it'll be: Any proccesor that can overclock into an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ without it being unstable.

I've read reviews and bench marks and I'm trying to figure out if the CPU's for socket 754 better or the ones for socket 939 by asking people who've had experience with theese proccesors. Don't worry I've done my homework on theese processors =)
 
Newegg now has newcastle 3400+ processors with 512K cache and 2.4Ghz clock speed. Wouldn't that be faster than a 3500+? since the 3400+ was right on its tale, the increase of 200Mhz will more than overcome the reduction of cache. Heh im sure you could get a 2.6+Ghz plus out of one of those but who knows.
 
Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
Ok new questions:

Should I get a 3400 and overclock to a 3700 or a 3500 and overclock it to a 3800

Can I overclock a 3200 to a 3700 without it being unstable?

If I can then can I overclock a 3000 into a 3700 without it being unstable?
Click to expand...



Can anyone answer those questions? If you do I think i'll know which processor to get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top