Newcastle vs. Clawhammer

[simeon]

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ Newcastle Processor (2.4GHz, 512kB, 1600MHz HTT, Socket 754) $223

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ Clawhammer Processor (2.2GHz, 1MB, 800MHz FSB, Socket 754) $219


Would putting a Clawhammer on a desktop NF3 754 mobo do any damage?
What's more important for gaming - clock speed, L2 cache, or bus speed?
Is one better for a stock rig and the other better for o/c?
Any other hidden cost/benefit to these processors?


thanks

 

[Algere]

No

Clock speed & both have the same HyperTransport speed: 800 or 1600 both ways.

Newcastle for both

Newcastles can run stock frequency with lower CPU voltage than Clawhammer.

 

[StrangerGuy]

The Newcastle one. The extra cache on the Clawhammer will not compensate for the 200MHz difference.


"Would putting a Clawhammer on a desktop NF3 754 mobo do any damage?"

No. Where did you get this idea from?


"What's more important for gaming - clock speed, L2 cache, or bus speed?"

Generally, A64s benefit more from a clock speed increase than cache and FSB increase.


"Is one better for a stock rig and the other better for o/c?"

The Newcastle will be better in both situations.


"Any other hidden cost/benefit to these processors?"

None I can think of.

 

[clarkey01]

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ Newcastle Processor (2.4GHz, 512kB, 1600MHz HTT, Socket 754)

That has to be the best bang for buck A64 chip out there.


e.g The 4000+ has 512k more cache and a slighty higher HTT and dual channel memory, so about 10% faster at the most, despite being at the same clock speed. Why pay double for a performance gain you wouldnt notice ?

 

[simeon]

damn that was quick! thanks a lot guys

so lemme get this straight...
putting the info you just gave together with my limited knowledge about A64 not benefiting that much at all from the dual channel of the 939 socket... and this other info about similarly priced A64 chips...

939 3500 2.2GHz $329 (90nm)
939 3500 2.2GHz $271
939 3200 2.0GHz $235 (90nm)
754 3400 2.4GHz $223
754 3200 2.2GHz $190

the conlusion is that the 754 3400 is not only the fastest chip but also the next to last least expensive???
and that the even the $190 754 3200 matches the 939 3500 speed and it's $80 cheaper???

WTF

 

[simeon]

clarkey you read my mind


this stuff doesn't make any sense to me, but I won't complain about a killer deal like that.
looks like its 754 3400 all the way.

 

[simeon]

sorry about posting so many times in a row, but I've got another related question:

I've read that the 754's run faster with a single stick of ram rather than two...
IOW, a 1GB stick is better than 2x512 sticks. Is that true?


--------------------------------------------------------------
StrangerGuy: "No. Where did you get this idea from?"
dunno... noobs get wierd ideas sometimes
yesterday i read about a guy that took a hammer and vice grips to his $2000 FX chip LOL
hope its not true, but it was funny the way he described it ROFL

 

[Algere]

Never heard that but if true the performance difference between 1*1024MB & 2*512MB would be trivial @ best IMO.

 

[simeon]

"the performance difference... would be trivial @ best IMO."
makes sense

Algere, StrangerGuy, Clarkey01 - thanks again to all. my first build's going to be that much better from your help and I appreciate it.

 

[Jeff7181]

I think the nForce3 150 chipsets and early Athlon-64 processors had some trouble when you used more than two sticks of RAM, but I'm pretty sure all that's been cleared up now in all the revisions to the CPU's memory controller and the motherboard chipsets. The only problem I see with the 1x1024 vs. 2x512 debate is that the single 1 GB sticks are usually more expensive, and I beleive they usually are higher latency, like CAS 3 for PC3200 RAM.