what is better?

[thecrecarc]

for amd 64 witch is better newcastle or winchester?

 

[w00t]

winchester
because better oc

 

[airfoil]

Winchester

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: w00t
winchester
because better oc

Agreed. Also the winchester core is faster Mhz for Mhz than the newcastle by a very small margin. AMD has had a great transition to 90nm so far.

 

[thecrecarc]

whta if i don't overclock?

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
whta if i don't overclock?

That depends on your priorities. The Newcastles are a little cheaper, the winchesters are a tiny bit faster and a little bit cooler.

 

[Farvacola]

I'd go with winchesters, overall a better core for a minimal amount increase in price.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
whta if i don't overclock?

It's still better. Winchesters have considerably lower power consumption than the 130nm chips and less heat output despite the smaller cores.

Since prices have nearly come down to par with equivalent 130nm parts, I see no reason why not to go with 90nm.

 

[imported_Zeke]

winchester

 

[uOpt]

The advantage of the Newcastle is that you can get the 2.4 GHz one for $220 - $230. [EDITED, got the wrong core]

So if you don't overclock you get more bang for the buck, unless you have a program which heavily relies on cache or memory bandwidth.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
The advantage of the Winchester is that you can get the 2.4 GHz one for $220 - $230.

So if you don't overclock you get more bang for the buck, unless you have a program which heavily relies on cache or memory bandwidth.

Where is that? The best I can find is $262 on Monarch Computer. I'd take a 3500+ for $230 in a heartbeat.

 

[uOpt]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
The advantage of the Winchester is that you can get the 2.4 GHz one for $220 - $230.

So if you don't overclock you get more bang for the buck, unless you have a program which heavily relies on cache or memory bandwidth.

Where is that? The best I can find is $262 on Monarch Computer. I'd take a 3500+ for $230 in a heartbeat.

I'm sorry, I meant the Newcastle. It is available for $219 with 2.4 GHz.

http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-103-484&depa=1

I find it very hard to beat the clockspeed argument. The few comparisions I have seen of these AMD64 indicate the same thing.

 

[jterrell]

Winchester to me is actually cheaper when you figure you can run the retail heatsink and fan while on the Newcastle thats risking your cpu.

And if you are concerned about the cost then OC'ing is a great idea. The 90nm 3000+ has consistently shown to OC to 2.4 GHz plus with retail fan and heatsink. Thats a big savings right there.

 

[thecrecarc]

okay... and is there a .9 micron fx-53? and fx-53 IS good right?

 

[formulav8]

Winchester clock for clock is anywhere from 1-8% faster or so than Newcastle on the same socket 939 platform. If you wait till Jan or so the core is going to be tweaked even more and could add another 3% on average at the same mhz over the previous core and will have SSE3 support added.


Jason

 

[formulav8]

ALL FX cpu's are .13. There are NONE that are .09 YET



Jason

 

[thecrecarc]

witch is better (i don't overclock) fx-53 or 4000+?

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
witch is better (i don't overclock) fx-53 or 4000+?

4000+ is better because the two chips are the same but the FX-53 goes for more because it is completely unlocked. That's great for OCing, but a real waste of money if you don't.