Newcastle 3200 vs Clawhammer 3200

[kd2777]

A friend emailed me this question a little while ago, and I instantly said get the Clawhammer, but before I sent it I decided to go look for some benchmarks to prove my answer but came up empty. During the hour long search I decided that I don't know for sure if the Clawhammer is a better chip. I have heard differing opinions about the lower cache really doesn't matter, then some people say that the cache will matter when the 64bit windows come out and for later games. I've heard the NC overclocks better - then someone else says the CH overclocks better. So I'm at an ends. Does anybody know a definitive answer or where some benchmarks are so I can sift through them?

Thanks

KD

 

[ViRGE]

I can't really find anything either, so the best I can do is point you to this, Anand's Newcastle 3000+ review. It goes against a 3200+ Clawhammer, but it's worth noting that dropping half the L2 cache costs the Newcastle very little(it and the Clawhammer are at the same core speed), whereas the A64 does pretty well when you pump up the core speed.

 

[killedradiostar]

i'm going through the same dilemma right now. NC 3200, CH 3200, or NC 3000? recall that the CH3200 and NC 3000 are both clocked at 2.0GHz. i'd imagine this is a major factor in their similar performance on the benches in anand's review.

the NC 3200 is, of course, at 2.2GHz. i think that's what i'm going with.

there's the added complication that there's a later revision of the CH3200 that's apparently better for OC. if you can get that one, i believe the common recommendation is the CH3200 over the NC3000.

 

[Markfw]

Go for the newcastle 3200 since its clocked higher and the cache makes little difference.

 

[n7]

Holy sh!t you got an RX-8 *drool*

Err...yeah, the wrong topic.
I would be interested in benchies as well, though i think there is minor difference.

 

[blurredvision]

Well, I have to admit that I'm the friend that kd2777 is referring to. I just want to get the best processor bang for my buck, but I'm at a crossroads. On one hand, I like the extra cache on the claw, but on the other, that 200Mhz speed increase looks great. Apparently all the direct benches are nowhere to be found.

Can anyone shed some light on this subject?

 

[68GTX]

Hardware.fr benchmarked the 3200+ & 3400+ Clawhammer & Newcastle CPUs.

 

[WebDude]

Originally posted by: 68GTX
Hardware.fr benchmarked the 3200+ & 3400+ Clawhammer & Newcastle CPUs.

Merci bien pour la revue française. Je la trouve très instructive.

Le passage de 512 Ko à 1024 Ko de cache L2 offre pour sa part un gain de performances encore plus faible, puisqu?il est de 2.3% sur Socket 754 et de 1.8% sur Socket 939 (0 à 4% selon les applications).

[Basically, NewCastle 3200+ is faster than Clawhammer 3200+ in the aggregate of the tests performed in the review. NewCastle 3200+ = 140.5, Clawhammer 3200+ = 133.5.]

 

[kd2777]

Ive heard a couple of people say that there is a huge difference in the 3200 CH and the 3400 CH, so is there a huge difference in the 3400 @ 2.2 and the 3200NC @ 2.2? If so would his best option be to get a 3200 CH and OC it to 2.2?


KD

 

[Bar81]

You can expect a CH to outperform a NC by about 5% across the board at the same speed. That would mean that at stock a NC would be slightly faster than the CH 3200+ However, every CH 3200+ will do 2.2Ghz so your best bet is to get a CH and overclock it to 2.2Ghz.

 

[WebDude]

Really 2 questions here. It depends upon whether you're going to OC or not. If you're going to stay with the stock speeds, the NC seems a bit better in most applicatins than the CH (comparing chips of equivalent AMD ratings, like '3200+'). OC'ing opens up a whole new world, and depends upon how high your particular chip can go.