• 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.

Newcastle and Clawhammer

P

Penoir

Member
I've been looking around and looking at comparisons between the Newcastle and Clawhammer cores. The Newcastle seems to be far superior to the clawhammer at stock speeds. I've only seen one benchmark that tested the 3000 and 3200 newcastles alongside the 3200 and 3400 clawhammers, but the 3200 came out just behind the 3400 and way ahead of the 3200 (sorry, I don't remember where that was.) On benchmarks (I'm pretty sure it was anandtech's) with the 3000 newcastle 3200 clawhammer and 3400 clawhammer, the 3000 seems to be just slightly behind the 3200, while the difference between the 3200 and the 3400 seems to be much greater.

It seems that a lot of people still consider the clawhammer to be the better core despite this. Is this only for overclocking purposes? If running at stock speeds wouldn't the newcastle be much better? I've also read that the 512k cache will have more of an impact in 64 bit applications. Is this true? Has anyone tested both in 64 bit windows by any chance? Is there something else I'm missing?
 
do you know where i can purchase a 3200+ newcastle? newegg seems to only sell the clawhammer at that speed.
 
If you look at dealtime.com you should be able to find some. The model# is ADA3200AXBOX (The clawhammer 3200+ is ADA3200BOX)

The only places that have them now are fairly overpriced. Most seem to be $320+ right now. There's one for 286 but I don't know anything about that vendor and they only have 16 reviews.
 
In theory, Newcastle should OC better because of it's reduced cache and be cooler clock-for-clock. AFAIK, it's the superior core all around. I'd rather have an extra 200MHz than another 512Kb of L2.
 
I don't know if I'd say it's "far superior." That's stretching it a bit. There's not much difference between the cores other than the size of the L2 cache. Actually, about the only other thing that might be different would be the quality. The more CPU's they make, the more they learn how to make them better and capable of higher clock speeds.
 
But it still does not explain why people prefer Claw Hammer over NewCastle? Since NewCastle is a new core does it not make sense to buy that instead?
 
Originally posted by: kulki
But it still does not explain why people prefer Claw Hammer over NewCastle? Since NewCastle is a new core does it not make sense to buy that instead?
Click to expand...

People want the 1 MB L2 cache... the Clawhammer is the only way to get it. The extra cache DOES make a difference in some instances... people are only buying A64 3000+'s that are based on the Clawhammer core with half the cache disabled because that's all that's been available for a long time.
 
A64 mobiles are based on new CG revision (just like Newcastle) AND have 1M of cache
They also run on lower voltage and should o/c even better.
That is why I bought AMN3200BIX5AR instead of ADA3200AXBOX.
 
Originally posted by: dimasukr
A64 mobiles are based on new CG revision (just like Newcastle) AND have 1M of cache
They also run on lower voltage and should o/c even better.
That is why I bought AMN3200BIX5AR instead of ADA3200AXBOX.
Click to expand...

I just got a A64 Newcastle w/ 512kb, but the stepping (AP) denote C0 stepping ????😕

i thought newcastles were all CG steppings!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top