• 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.

Wha ... ?! O_O

Zenoth

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Now that version tells me my core is a ClawHammer ?! (Stepping "A" / Revision "SH7-CG")

CPU-z 1.28 was telling me it was a NewCastle !

SiSoft Sandra 2005 was also telling me it was a ClawHammer though. I was never sure what core it was. But now I'm even more confused.

I will get myself one of those San Diego beasts next month, as planned for some time anyway.

But, I'm just curious now.

Can anyone please let me know what's technically different from ClawHammer to NewCastle ?

I feel ... ashamed. The guy at the store told me "Yep, that's a NewCastle", then I bought it, because I needed a processor fast, my P IV 2.6C died a week prior to that day. Anyways ...

Since I was 101% sure my core was a NewCastle, and now that I'm not anymore, I'd like to know ... out of curiosity, am I missing any "advantages" from the real NewCastle cores compared to my ... "looks to be" ClawHammer ?

Thanks.

 
AMD put a lot of 3500+ CPUs out on the street that were Clawhammers with 1/2 of the cache disabled. You may have one if you bought the CPU in the last couple months. There's no disadvantage. If you want to shoot for a high OC, the "clawcastles" as they've been called are actually better on average.
 
I wouldnt be totally ashamed. Those cores were reject FX55s and clock considerably better than their earlier winchester counterparts.
 
Thanks guys.

Meh ... a bit shocked by the surprise.

So it's not really negative, but there's nothing so positive as I can see. A good over-clocker, perhaps, but, if no over-clocking is implied, then, I guess it's better to have a processor on stock speed with all of its actual Cache enabled.

By the way, is there any way I can tell if my L2 Cache (it's the L2 that's half-disabled, right ?) is actually cut in half ? Any programs confirming so ?

Thanks again guys.

Can't wait next month. M'gonna get a 3700+ San Diego, and over-clock it by 200 Mhz and set it on the 3800+'s level with less money involved.
 
Originally posted by: Zenoth
Thanks guys.

Meh ... a bit shocked by the surprise.

So it's not really negative, but there's nothing so positive as I can see. A good over-clocker, perhaps, but, if no over-clocking is implied, then, I guess it's better to have a processor on stock speed with all of its actual Cache enabled.

By the way, is there any way I can tell if my L2 Cache (it's the L2 that's half-disabled, right ?) is actually cut in half ? Any programs confirming so ?

Thanks again guys.

Can't wait next month. M'gonna get a 3700+ San Diego, and over-clock it by 200 Mhz and set it on the 3800+'s level with less money involved.
Click to expand...


Actual Clawhammers had 1MB of cache, similar to the SanDiego core ..

It's just disabled, and the performance gain in minimal.. (But still effective) 3-4%


 
Originally posted by: Zenoth
Thanks guys.

Meh ... a bit shocked by the surprise.

So it's not really negative, but there's nothing so positive as I can see. A good over-clocker, perhaps, but, if no over-clocking is implied, then, I guess it's better to have a processor on stock speed with all of its actual Cache enabled.

By the way, is there any way I can tell if my L2 Cache (it's the L2 that's half-disabled, right ?) is actually cut in half ? Any programs confirming so ?

Thanks again guys.

Can't wait next month. M'gonna get a 3700+ San Diego, and over-clock it by 200 Mhz and set it on the 3800+'s level with less money involved.
Click to expand...

who cares dont worry about it your gonna get a 3700+ SD next month and they rock 😉

PLUS++PLUSPLUS+++PLUS .. you do not and i repeat DO NOT buy a 3700+ and only go form 200Mhz over stock, i would recommend, no i am telling you to OC that bad boy upto 2.8... thats FX57 sh!t there my main man .. 😛

anyways happy days with the new SD .. i am still debating whether to get one of those or an 4400+ X2 that ent damn compatibile with my mobo yet .. god damn it ..

 
Hopefully I will start overclocking my Venice today and see how much this badboy can take. I just need to transfer 200 gigs of data to my new rig first. Then benchmark and overclock. I hope it will clock good since my last 3 chips didnt like overclocking at all. My last successfull overclocking chip was my celeron 600@1017 mhz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top