ClawHammer or Newcastle?

L

LiquidX

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
3,786
Can you guys please tell me which is the better buy. The price difference is only about $15 and wanted to make sure which is the better buy. Based on speed because oc'ing wont be a factor.



AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 512k L2 Cache

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-484&depa=1

Specification
Model: AMD Athlon 64 3400+
Core: Newcastle
Operating Frequency: 2.4GHz
FSB: Integrated int chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/512K
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 754
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Packaging: Retail Box (Heatsink and Fan included)
Click to expand...


AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 1MB L2 Cache
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-426&depa=1

Specifications:
Model: AMD Athlon 64 3400+
Core: ClawHammer
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
FSB: Integrated into chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1MB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 754
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Packaging: Retail Box (Heatsink and Fan included)
Click to expand...
 
they would probably perform about the same

I have a Newcastle 3200+, runs well oc'ed at 2.3; but I've never used a Clawhammer, so I can't honestly compare the two.

Copied from some comparison of the two:
...go for a Newcastle core, the extra 200MHz given is a generous compensation for the loss of 512K cache. there is also a much higher chance of receiving a CG stepping core, which overclocks better; very few ClawHammers are based on the CG stepping.
 
Yea i would say go with the Newcastle core. The extra 200Mhz will be more beneficial then the extra 512kb L2 cache.
 
Tenchi4U said:
...very few ClawHammers are based on the CG stepping.
Click to expand...

that's not really true anymore. they stopped making CO cores a long time ago, and when i ordered my 3200+ clawhammer from the egg in the middle of the summer, it was CG, so chances are that you'll get a CG clawhammer.

however, the 200mhz does help out a lot. plus newcastles tend to overclock better only having 1/2 the cache.
 
I got a CG ClawHammer 3400+ on luck-of-the-draw. I can't really comment on the comparison from experience, but it seems like ClawHammer all the way to me. Similar overclocking peak (and it's based on your luck anyway) but twice the cache. Plus, better performance gain per clock. I'd only go with the Newcastle if you're not going to OC at all.
 
I would think that getting the one with the 1MB of cache and then overclocking it would be better. If your not really into overclocking then just a small 200MHz bump to 2.4GHz would be nice. That way you will have a 2.4Ghz chip with 1 MB of cache. :D

But if you want to overclock alot, then get the Newcastle with 512k of cache.
 
I'm guessing cause of the cache.

Clocking a Clawhammer from 2.2 to 2.4 would give a bigger boost then bringing a Newcastle from 2.2 to 2.4.

But of course I could be completely wrong. :D
 
I ordered a A64 3400+ Clawhammer from newegg, appeared it was CG. I would get the clawhammer (CG) and overclock it to 2.4 if possible.
 
you will get to 2.4 no problem. I have one myself, but getting it higher gets tricky you will need good cooling and a little patience in setting it up.
 
he clearly stated OC'in is not a factor, in which case i would say the 1 mb cache, since for some very very odd reason, a xp 2500 512 cache runnin at 2.2 ghz, beats my xp2700 with 256 cache runnin at 2.4 ghz, untill i OC the FSB that is :D
 
Well then he should get the Clawhammer and OC just a wee bit.

Up the FSB to 218 and he'll have himself a 3700+ :D
 
I've got a A64 3400+ Clawhammer running at 2.44 Ghz. It's faster than a Cheetah on crack !!
 
LordBritish said:
I've got a A64 3400+ Clawhammer running at 2.44 Ghz. It's faster than a Cheetah on crack !!
Click to expand...

I run a Clawhammer @ 2.86.

More cache and a fine oc.
 
Silverghost said:
But if you want to overclock alot, then get the Newcastle with 512k of cache.
Click to expand...

Clownboat said:
If you're not going to OC, the Newcastle is the pretty clear choice.
Click to expand...

Sounds like ither way he should go with the Newcastle core lol.

I dont think the extra 512kb of L2 cache will make much of a difference because if you remember back to the release of the 3000+ 512kb and 3200+ 1MB L2, both clocked at the same speed, there was very little performance difference. The extra 200Mhz on the Newcastle core should allow it to stay ahead of the Clawhammer in the majority of benches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top