why is the winchester 1.8 a 3000+

[leedog2007]

I was just browsing newegg and the athlon 64 2800+ (newcastle) operates at 1.8GHz and has the same amount of cache as the 3000+. Anyone know why the 3000+ winchester is rated that instead of 2800+?

 

[ts3433]

The Socket 939 chips have a dual channel memory controller, which increases performance by about 5-8% at the same clockspeed when used.

 

[TheStu]

the winchester is a 90nm chip whereas the Newcastle is a 130nm chip. The Winchester has better technology in its construction other than clock speed and cache size.

 

[TheStu]

i didn't even notice the socket 939 part.....

 

[leedog2007]

I know the differences between the winchester and newcastle but how does that warrant a higher rating. It sounds like AMD politics.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

3000+ is a performance rating, AMD's ranking/naming convention was obviously first intended to equate AMD's performance to Intel's clockspeed. ie.. 3000+ = 3.0mhz P4

 

[ts3433]

Originally posted by: leedog2007
I know the differences between the winchester and newcastle but how does that warrant a higher rating. It sounds like AMD politics.

It's not Winchester vs. Newcastle; it's 754 vs. 939. This practice applies to other chips as well--an identically PR-rated 939 chip is clocked 200MHz below the 754 to make up for the dual channel (though the extra 200MHz usually outweighs dual channel).

 

[leedog2007]

My problem with the rating system is that it assumes a 939 user will have dual channel memory. If you don't run dual channel you've got a 200 rating bump.

 

[ts3433]

Dual channel was the whole point of the 939 socket in the first place (not upgradability or anything--those were mostly after-effects), so this shouldn't be a problem...