3500 Newcastle vs. Wnchester

S

Seraphem

n00b
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
8
The only difference I can see between these two chips is the size and I don't know what difference that makes. I'm trying to decide which chip to use with an A8N-SLI deluxe. Does anyone have any insight? The Newcastle is $40 cheaper at NewEgg.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-494&catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-460&catalog=23&manufactory=BROWSE

I'm not sure if those links will work. Here is the summary of the two chips at NewEgg:
$259
AMD Athlon 64 3500+, Socket 939, 512KB L2 Cache 64-bit Processor - OEM

Model# ADA3500DEP4AW
Item # N82E16819103460

Specifications:
Model: AMD Athlon 64
Core: Newcastle
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/ 512KB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 939
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Packaging: OEM(Processor Only)

$299
AMD Socket 939 Athlon 64 3500+, 90nm, 2.2 GHz, 512KB L2 Cache 64-bit Processor - OEM

Model# ADA3500DIK4BI
Item # N82E16819103494

Specifications:
Model: AMD Athlon 64
Core: Winchester
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/ 512KB
Voltage: 1.4V
Process: 90 nm
Socket: Socket 939
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Packaging: OEM(Processor Only)
 
If your going to overclock it, the Winchester is better. Its manufactured on the 90 nm process, which allows it to run cooler at a lower voltage. Which allows it to be overclocked more.
 
And its faster clock for clock... You will never notice it but its there... :p
 
There is something wrong with the pricing though... I mean the reason AMD went to 90nm is because they can produce more of them per wafer... This decreases cost on their part.

Also you probably won't get a better clock out of the Winchester vs Newcastle, with the fact being the NewCastle will not have problems with it's mem controller (like many winchester's probs with prime95)

One more point: AMD has been RMA'in NewCastles as people ship back their winchesters (this could be due to demand, but also possibly mem controller function)
 
supply and demand. the demand for winchesters is much higher so the prices go up some.

and in addition to the winchester oc'ing better, they also put out 22w less at stock speeds (89 vs 67), which lets it keep things cooler.
 
I went for the Newcastle because it can take more voltage then the Winchester (and all the talk about temperatures is SHIT, if you overclock you don't use the stock HSF anyway, and there is a difference of about 2-3 degrees between them@full load@stock speed)
One more thing, I belive the performance between them is equal to 0 and all this crap is just a marketing trick
 
well the performance difference between the two is more noticable when you get the winchester clocked 200mhz faster :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
well the performance difference between the two is more noticable when you get the winchester clocked 200mhz faster :D
Click to expand...
200mhz faster? shoot you would something like vaperchill to do that.
 
BEST JD TCR said:
200mhz faster? shoot you would something like vaperchill to do that.
Click to expand...

:confused: What are you talkin' bout :D I've got my 3000+ going at 2.25Ghz with no problems at all, that's a 450Mhz difference, on stock cooling

Do you mean 200Mhz over stock 3500+ speed or over ANY speed? Regardless there are people that have hit 2.6Ghz with air cooling...
 
PvP-ForLife said:
One more thing, I belive the performance between them is equal to 0 and all this crap is just a marketing trick
Click to expand...

I don't think AMD ever claimed the 90nm cpus to be faster
 
I don't know what you guys are saying about all this overclocking business and needing different hsf, but as scott77 said there are tons of people doing very nice oc's on stock cooling and running prime95 fine for hours upon hours.
 
needmorecarnitine said:
I don't think AMD ever claimed the 90nm cpus to be faster
Click to expand...
they didn't, but the winchesters are faster, have a look



anand said:
Gaming Performance was consistently faster on the new 90nm than the existing 130nm processors. This varied from 2% in Aquamark3 and Doom3 to 7% in Quake 3. Overall, gaming averaged about 3% faster on the new 90nm chips. While 3% is not a huge increase and it will likely not even be noticed by the average user, it was still impressive to see the new 90nm chips perform a little better than the older 130nm chips.
Click to expand...
 
Bottom line is that the misc. advantages the 90micron process/minor revisions added are worth $40 on the open market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top