Confused: Differences among AMD64 Newcastle, ClawHammer, & Winchester

BehindEnemyLines

Senior member
Jul 24, 2000
979
0
0
It seems that the cheapest is the NewCastle, then the ClawHammer, then the Winchester. And there's also the Socket 754 (I believe) and Socket 939. Can someone explain to me the differences among these AMD64? Thanks.
 

Concillian

Diamond Member
May 26, 2004
3,751
8
81
Clawhammer = 1MB cache 130nm process older, generally overclocks only to ~2200-2300 range on air
Newcastle = 512k cache 130nm process generally overclocks to 2400-2550 range on air
Winchester = 90nm Newcastle (for the most part anyway) lower power consumption and overclocks to 2500-2600 MHz range on air

Winchesters perform slightly better (like 1% not a big difference) than an equivalent clocked Newcastle

Socket 754 = single channel memory
Socket 939 = dual channel memory

Dual channel memory is significantly better in some situations (5% or so) and almost negligible in others Average is 2-3% performance boost for dual channel. Actually the extra cache is that way too, except usually negligible.

For the most part, You should be looking at Newcastle for S754 (budget system) or Winchester on S939 (higher end) since they don't make S754 Winchesters. For most gamers, S754 with an overclocked 2800+ is more than enough CPU power.
 

drpootums

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,315
0
0
ok, good, i was trying to find info on this too. And i saw there was a CO revision on the new clawhammer chips that help oc's, but either way, is it usually a good idea to go with the newcastle? I used the search and didnt find any info on the CO revisions. THX!
 

OnEMoReTrY

Senior member
Jul 1, 2004
520
0
0
the CO revision is the old one and it CERTAINLY doesn't help overclocks, the CG revision is the new one and overclock 100-200mhz higher
 

drpootums

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,315
0
0
oh, ok. So is the CG version a better value than the CO version? Or is it still best to save money and get the newcastle.

If DFI comes out with a socet 939 board then i may get a 3200+, but i think i'll still go socket 754.
 

charloscarlies

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2004
1,288
0
0
Originally posted by: drpootums
oh, ok. So is the CG version a better value than the CO version? Or is it still best to save money and get the newcastle.

If DFI comes out with a socet 939 board then i may get a 3200+, but i think i'll still go socket 754.

Usually you'll only get the CO's if they're selling really old stock. And be careful, just because you get a CG Clawhammer doesn't mean it will overclock well. My brother has a 3200+ CG that won't do anything over 2.3 ghz. But in general, yes the CG's are better than CO's. Most places that are still selling Claws have the CG's but that isn't guaranteed. Look for an 'AR' code on the box instead of 'AP'. Newcastles are 'AX'

Personally, I would go with a Newcastle though. Every one I've had has done 2.4 ghz atleast on stock cooling even. With better cooling a lot are doing 2.5 on air and 2.6-2.7 on water is possible. The Newcastles are also usually cheaper as you said.

Oh and I just want to add. Even the 2800+'s are hitting 2.4+ ghz so I wouldn't spend the extra money on the 3200 or 3400 because they will all overclock about the same. I recommend the 3000+ because the 10x multi gives you more options with your memory. I would recommend the following:

A64 3000+ Newcastle - $155 boxed at Newegg
Chaintech VNF3-250 - usually around $70 ish OR the Epox in my sig is also the same price (both OC well)

You would almost certainly be able to hit 2.4 ghz on a very nice budget. :)
 

drpootums

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,315
0
0
ok, so i should go with the newcastle. I would rather stay at stock for a while (parents buying most of this for me for Christmas and i dont wanna tell them if something goes wrong that we cant send it back). The 3400+ newcastle sounds good to me though.
How high do you think i would be able to get it? The 3400 CH can get to 2.4 usually, so this would possilby get to 2.6? I will have a TT Venus 12 so cooling shouldnt be too much of a problem when i decide to oc (in about 2-3 years most likely, when the warrenty's almost gone)

Thx!

EDIT: are there any other advantages to the NC? I heard that they are faster than the CH at stock (with a 3400+) and that they produce less heat.
 

drpootums

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,315
0
0
http://216.239.39.104/translat...%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

There are a lot of graphs (sorry, some of it is a foriegn language, but the graphs arent!) and i'm trying to figure out if the
A64 3400+ skt754 1Mo is the Clawhammer and if the A64 3400+ skt754 is the Newcastle. If i'm right, the newcastle gives a pretty nice performance increase over the clawhammer.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This is a summary of Desktop A64 only.

1. Desktop A64 939 (90 nm) Smallest AMD die.
These CPU's feature dual memory controller adding 1-5% in performance over skt754 newcastle chips.
Run cooler than 130nm counterparts and have subble core enhancements adding 1-2% in performance over 130nm.

Three models all winchesters
3000+: 1.8GHz, x9 Winchester
3200+: 2.0 GHz, x10 Winchester
3500+: 2.2 GHz, x11 Winchester


2. Desktop A64 939 (130 nm)
These CPU's feature dual memory controller adding 1-5% in performance over skt754 newcastle chips.

Three models
3500+: 2.2 GHz, x11 newcastle
3800+: 2.4 GHz, x12 newcastle
4000+: 2.4 GHz x12 Clawhammer with 1mb lvl 2 cache for 1-5% increase in performance over the 3800+ Clawhammer



3. Desktop A64 754 (130 nm)
Single channel mem controller. Some have 512KB lvl 2 cache, some have 1024. they will be noted. The extra cache adds about 1-5% performance depeding on app. 5% in games for sure.


2800+: 512 KB L2, 1.8 GHz, x9 Newcastle
3000+: 512 KB L2, 2.0 GHz, x10 Newcastle
3200+: 512 KB L2, 2.2 GHz, x11 Newcastle
3200+: 1 MB L2, 2.0 GHz, x10 Clawhammer
3400+: 512 KB L2, 2.4 GHz, x12 Newcastle
3400+: 1 MB L2, 2.2 GHz, x11 Clawhammer
3700+: 1 MB L2, 2.4 GHz, x12 Clawhammer



4. The badboys: A64 FX 939 (130 nm) Feature dual channel, 1MB L2, unlocked multipliers and beat anything on the PC planet.

FX53: 1 MB L2, 2.4 GHz x12
FX55: 1 MB L2, 2.6 GHz x13

Performance: slowest to fastest:

2800+: 512 KB L2, 1.8 GHz, x9 Newcastle
3000+: 1.8GHz, x9 Winchester
3000+: 512 KB L2, 2.0 GHz, x10 Newcastle
3200+: 1 MB L2, 2.0 GHz, x10 Clawhammer
3200+: 2.0 GHz, x10 Winchester
3200+: 512 KB L2, 2.2 GHz, x11 Newcastle
3400+: 1 MB L2, 2.2 GHz, x11 Clawhammer
3500+: 2.2 GHz, x11 newcastle
3500+: 2.2 GHz, x11 Winchester
3400+: 512 KB L2, 2.4 GHz, x12 Newcastle
3700+: 1 MB L2, 2.4 GHz, x12 Clawhammer
3800+: 2.4 GHz, x12 newcastle
4000+: 2.4 GHz x12 Clawhammer
FX53: 1 MB L2, 2.4 GHz x12
FX55: 1 MB L2, 2.6 GHz x13
 

Shooks

Golden Member
Jun 19, 2001
1,428
0
76
I am about to buy a FX-55 (939) from Newegg, but there are two different kinds, one is the retail one and that is a Sledgehammer, and the other is a OEM and it says that is a Clawhammer.....which one is the better one?
 

BehindEnemyLines

Senior member
Jul 24, 2000
979
0
0
I'm trying to decide among these three:
  1. A64 2800+ S754
  2. A64 3000+ S754
  3. A64 3000+ S939
The first one is the slowest clocked with A64 2800+. 2nd one is 3000+ S754. 3rd one is 3000+ S939 w/ 512KB L2 (according to website). Item two and three cost the same with item one as the cheapest. I'm deciding whether I should get the 2nd or 3rd item (or maybe the 1st). From the chart provided by Zebo, I should get the 2nd one even though it uses S735?????

However, I'm not sure how much cache the 2nd one has or if it's a NewCastle or ClawHammer. Is it possible for the S939 to have only 512KB L2?
 

drpootums

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,315
0
0
ok, so the 3400+ newcastle is a better value than the clawhammer for sure? According to Zebo it is, and that's good. But you said the extra cache helps a lot in games, but does the extra 200mhz help more?

Thx!