What is the difference between ClawHammer and Newcastle?

[cpuloser]

What is the difference between a ClawHammer AMD Athlon 64 2800+ and a Newcastle AMD Athlon 64 2800+? I plan to use this processor for my new computer, but I don't know the difference between the two (except for a $1 difference.)

 

[ViRGE]

Clawhammers have 1MB of cache, Newcastles have 512KB. Newcastles tend to be clocked 200mhz higher than a Clawhammer at the same rating, and in general are faster(the extra 512KB cache doesn't add much).

 

[ViRGE]

Edit: I just looked at Newegg since I figured that's where you're shopping. There's something wrong with their product list, there shouldn't be a 2800+ Clawhammer, it doesn't exist. Plus the one they list at 512KB cache.

 

[formulav8]

The 2800+ Clawhammer cores do exist. AMD disabled half of the cache which makes it a 512KB cache cpu. The other 512KB cache could have been defective or something, so they made it into a 512KB cache cpu instead.



Jas

 

[cpuloser]

Thanks for your help. It seems point less to make a ClawHammer 2800+ if it is the exact same as the Newcastle one.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: cpuloser
Thanks for your help. It seems point less to make a ClawHammer 2800+ if it is the exact same as the Newcastle one.

I bet it's not the same. There could be important differences, IE, overclockability. I'll check into it, momentarily.

 

[alimoalem]

Originally posted by: cpuloser
Thanks for your help. It seems point less to make a ClawHammer 2800+ if it is the exact same as the Newcastle one.

but it's not the exact same. i think the 2800+ 1.8GHz for clawhammer w/1mb cache and the newcastle is 2.0GHz with 512kb cache

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: alimoalem

Originally posted by: cpuloser
Thanks for your help. It seems point less to make a ClawHammer 2800+ if it is the exact same as the Newcastle one.

but it's not the exact same. i think the 2800+ 1.8GHz for clawhammer w/1mb cache and the newcastle is 2.0GHz with 512kb cache

No, they both have the same visible specs. IE, both 1.8 GHz clock, both 512 KB L2. The invisible specs--the internal circuitry--are what probably differ. My guess--and this is just a guess--is that because "Clawhammer" is an older design, the "Newcastle" has better overclocking potential. And you had better be overclocking anything in the $100+ range.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: alimoalem

Originally posted by: cpuloser
Thanks for your help. It seems point less to make a ClawHammer 2800+ if it is the exact same as the Newcastle one.

but it's not the exact same. i think the 2800+ 1.8GHz for clawhammer w/1mb cache and the newcastle is 2.0GHz with 512kb cache

No, they both have the same visible specs. IE, both 1.8 GHz clock, both 512 KB L2. The invisible specs--the internal circuitry--are what probably differ. My guess--and this is just a guess--is that because "Clawhammer" is an older design, the "Newcastle" has better overclocking potential. And you had better be overclocking anything in the $100+ range.

You're going to have better overclocking potential reguardless on the Newcastle simply because it's a smaller core. Half the Clawhammer's L2 cache may be disabled, but that doesn't mean the larger die can't still interfear with overclocking.

 

[Ike0069]

I think some of you might be confused here.
S754 A64 chips are either Newcastle or Clawhammer, which are both .13um cores. Newcastles have 512K Cache, Clawhammers had 1MB Cache. Yes, there is a 512 Clawhammer version of the 2800+ S754, but its because AMD disabled 1/2 the cache for what ever reason (these chips likely had a manufacturing defect that caused it problems when trying to run with 1 MB L2 Cache).

Then when AMD initially started releasing S939 chips, they only released 3500+/3800+ Newcastles (2.2 GHz/2.4 GHz, 512 Cache), and FX-53/55 Clawhammers (2.4GHz, 1MB Cache / 2.6 GHz, 1 MB Cache). They then changed to .09um chips

Now S939 chips of equal rating to a S754 are clocked 200Mhz slower due to the dual channel RAM effects of the S939 chips.

So Newcastle and Clawhammer are both a relatively old design and do not OC very well (at least when compared to the .09um A64's.

 

[cpuloser]

So, Newcastle has a smaller core and a better overclocking potential? I think I'll get Newcastle unless there is a way to unlock the extra 512KB L2 on the ClawHammer.

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: cpuloser
So, Newcastle has a smaller core and a better overclocking potential? I think I'll get Newcastle unless there is a way to unlock the extra 512KB L2 on the ClawHammer.

Huh?
No, Newcastle and Clawhammer are both .13um cores.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Ike0069

Originally posted by: cpuloser
So, Newcastle has a smaller core and a better overclocking potential? I think I'll get Newcastle unless there is a way to unlock the extra 512KB L2 on the ClawHammer.

Huh?
No, Newcastle and Clawhammer are both .13um cores.

They're both .13um cores, but Newcastle is a newer design with a smaller die, and should overclock a bit better.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Clawhammers have 1MB of cache, Newcastles have 512KB. Newcastles tend to be clocked 200mhz higher than a Clawhammer at the same rating, and in general are faster(the extra 512KB cache doesn't add much).

 

[Googer]

New Castle is a newer Version of Clawhammer. Clawhammer had some troubles that New Castle fixed. Personaly I would go with a 2800+ Venice core, it is about the same price and performs much better. Venice also Supports DDR500 where as Newcastle/Clawhammer support only DDR400 among many other differances.

Claw Hammer> New Castle > Winchester > Venice.

For less (+$21) than half the cost of a new game, this processor provides one of the best performance to dollar ratios:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103537

ADA3000BPBOX
ADA2800BPBOX

Also Newcastle and Clawhammer Run About 15-25% hotter than Venice core. Clawhammer was the budget version of Sledgehammer with half the cache disabled.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: formulav8
The 2800+ Clawhammer cores do exist. AMD disabled half of the cache which makes it a 512KB cache cpu. The other 512KB cache could have been defective or something, so they made it into a 512KB cache cpu instead.



Jas

Incorrect. I think you mean to say Newcastle has half the cache disabled. Clawhammer has the full megabyte.