• 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.

Clawhammer or Newcastle?

SonicIce

SonicIce

Diamond Member
Is there any real differance between Clawhammer and Newcastle? I want a Athlon 64 3200+ on Newegg but all I see is the Newcastle one with 512k L2 cashe. The 3400+ has both Clawhammer (1M L2) and Newcastle (512K L2) versions. Does that extra 512K make any differance if I wanted a 3200+ or maybe 3400+?😕

Edit: The Clawhammer and Newcastle 3400+'s are the exact same price. Also noticed that the Newcastle 3400+ operates at 2.4GHz and the Clawhammer is only 2.2GHz. Which one would be best?
 
I don't think there's a good consenus yet. People argue that the Clawhammer is better b/c you can't 'overclock' to 1mb of cache but you can overclock the core frequency on both, other claim that you'll get the same overclock out of the Newcastle so it's still at least equal.
 
See what I mean? 😀. Look at reviews and decide for yourself, you won't get a consensus here. I am getting a newcastle 3200+ soon, but that is becasuse I got a hot deal, so the decision was made for me. 😎
 
Originally posted by: SonicIce
Is there any real differance between Clawhammer and Newcastle? I want a Athlon 64 3200+ on Newegg but all I see is the Newcastle one with 512k L2 cashe. The 3400+ has both Clawhammer (1M L2) and Newcastle (512K L2) versions. Does that extra 512K make any differance if I wanted a 3200+ or maybe 3400+?😕

Edit: The Clawhammer and Newcastle 3400+'s are the exact same price. Also noticed that the Newcastle 3400+ operates at 2.4GHz and the Clawhammer is only 2.2GHz. Which one would be best?
Click to expand...

I had a similar inquiry about this situation as well. I guess its really up in the air now. If you don't oc your processor, then the newcastle will be faster out of the box. But if you oc the clawhammer to 2.2ghz to match the newcastle, you get the speed of the newcastle plus a extra 512 cache to bring it to 1MB. Of course one could argue that you can oc the newcastle as well.... Well you can never win i guess.
 
Well since the 3000 A64's with 512k cache at 2 Ghz perform similar to the Claw hammer 3200's with 1 Meg of cache. I would think that 2.2 Ghz New Castle chip would perform similar to the 3400's even with 1 Meg of cache. I'm sure more cache is helpful in some situations but not many.

I would think the New Caslte's would perform better at stock and with less cache the should have the benifit of OCing highier because the more cache the more chance of a part of it not working quite as well which would result in an error IE failing a stability test ect. But what do I know.
 
a quick side note: socket 754 processors only operate in single channel memory right? You can't run memory in dual channel like you can with the p4's correct? If not, will amd 64 processors ever be dual channel on socket 754?
 
Will most likely never be dual channel on 754. 939 has dual channel. There is a increase in performance on the 939 at the same mhz. But it is alittle higher in cost.


Jason
 
Originally posted by: JBT
Actually after checking out this guys post go with the Claw Hammer. They are close but the CH wins pretty muchText
Click to expand...
Er, no, the Newcastle clearly wins there by around 10%, the differnce in clock speed. 44s vs. 46s.

If the OP mentioned overclocking, it would be a different case.
 
Wups sorry I meant the Newcastle lol. I have been up way to long thanks for fixing my my mistake.
Uhhh.. I meant go New Castle!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top