• 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.

Which Athlon 64?

oFcA

Junior Member
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 😀
 
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.

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