Which Athlon 64?

[oFcA]

And I can't decide on which Athlon 64 to buy...
For the motherboard, I chose Epox 8KDA3+ which I think is great for that price range...even great for ANY price range

There have been some introductions to the market...
Now there are 3 kinds of athlon 64's..atlest I counted 3 of them

Which one is the best to buy?
I'm thinking of buying a 3200+ rating proc so:
the old Ath 64 model, 2.0 ghz, 1 mb L2 cache?
or
the new Ath 64 @ 2.2 ghz and 512 kb cache?

there are some other differences...in steppings, which i read somewhere but I didn't quite understand...
Also I read a review that claimed the new version @ 2.2 ghz produces significant heat...

Any reply from expirience is welcome

 

[n7]

I'm quite happy with my NewCastle 3200+ (512K L2 Cache)
The Clawhammers have 1 MB L2 Cache.

As for which is better, from all the reviews i have seen + all the comments in here, i don't think there's a big enough performance difference either way.
Get whatever is cheaper.

As for steppings, i do not know a lot, but there are others here who can explain what to look for if you are OCing alot.

 

[igblack]

get an 3400+ a64

 

[Viditor]

What apps are you using the most?

 

[Vette73]

If overclocking then get the 3200 that runs at 2Ghz with 1mb of cache. If dling very little overclocking and/or running stock speeds, then get the 3200 that runs at 2.2Ghz

 

[user1234]

the 2GHz 3000+ (512MB cache) is better value than the 2GHz 3200+ (1MB cache) because is has been shown that the cache has very little effect in gaming (less than 1% difference in fps).

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
If overclocking then get the 3200 that runs at 2Ghz with 1mb of cache. If dling very little overclocking and/or running stock speeds, then get the 3200 that runs at 2.2Ghz

Normally I would tend to agree; however, I ordered a Newcastle 3200+ a month or so ago and received a 3200+ Clawhammer, but it was a CG stepping so I thought I'd try it out. I have been very disappointed in its overclocking abilities. It would do 2.3 ghz @ 1.6-1.65 volts but wouldn't do 2.4 ghz at any vcore. Right now it's running @ 2.2 ghz on stock (1.5) volts. The Newcastle 3200+ I put in a friend's rig did 2.4 ghz on default voltage and 2.5 ghz on 1.6. I know overclocking is often a luck of the draw type of thing, but it seems that even the CG Clawhammers aren't overclocking as well as their NC counterparts. Maybe it's speed-binning by AMD?!?

Well anyways...grab the Newcastle. It's usually cheaper, and the halfed cache really doesn't make much of a difference. The extra clock speed on the other hand most definitely does.

 

[BW86]

yea the clawhammers usually dont oc as good as the newcastles

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Viditor
What apps are you using the most?

 

[pelikan]

I like the Newcastle 3000+ AX (CG). The "10" multiplier is good for overclocking flexibility and it tends to overclock as well as the other chips, except for the 3700+ (which is too expensive for me).

 

[user1234]

correct, the A64 3000+ newcastle is the best value (if you have really fast memory, than the x9 multiplier 2800+ is even better).