If you've bought a 3400+ recently...

seems like it could be a misprint though. have not yet seen anyone at the other forums saying they got a 512k cache 3400+, but hey it might be a newcastle 3400+. Fry's actually had a half cache 3200+, so who knows.
 
theyve been releasing both 3200+ and 3400+ newcastle core procs. they run 200mhz faster than their hammer cousins. but have half the cache.
 
It's getting tough to keep track of this stuff....

A 3400+ @ 2.4 with 512k will run about equal to a 3400+ @ 2.2 with 1mb... while the dual channel 3500+ @ 2.2 with 512 is faster from the dual channel... ARGHHH!

Fine... I will overclock my 3500 to 3800 speeds (hopefully) and call it a day. lol
 
Well the reason I'm kindof curious is because I cant envision a 2.4ghz 3400+ being slower than a 3500+ or even much slower than a 3800+. I mean its 200mhz faster than the 3500+, has the same cache but only one memory channel. No WAY its slower. And the 3800+ I suspect would only be marginally faster. In other words, if there is a new 2.4ghz 3400+ I WANT it! :)
 
Man that chart just seems off.. this is how I remember the list:

Scoket 754

A64 2800 = 1.8Ghz 512k L2
A64 3000 = 2.0Ghz 512k L2
A64 3200 = 2.0Ghz 1MB L2
A64 3400 = 2.2Ghz 1MB L2
A64 3700 = 2.4Hhz 1MB L2


The socket 939 processor information looks correct. If the 3400 ran at 2.4 I'd be all over it. Looks to me like a typo..
 
Evil Scooter said:
Man that chart just seems off.. this is how I remember the list:

Scoket 754

A64 2800 = 1.8Ghz 512k L2
A64 3000 = 2.0Ghz 512k L2
A64 3200 = 2.0Ghz 1MB L2
A64 3400 = 2.2Ghz 1MB L2
A64 3700 = 2.4Hhz 1MB L2


The socket 939 processor information looks correct. If the 3400 ran at 2.4 I'd be all over it. Looks to me like a typo..
Click to expand...
When AMD slices the cache in half, they give you 200mhz extra and call it the same PR. That being said, I don't know if a 'newcastle' 512k Cache 3400+ does exist...
 
So has anyone seen proof of a 3400+ Newcastle? I just received a Newcastle 3200+ from Newegg, which was supposed to be a Clawhammer. I had planned to return it and get a 3400+ that I thought were 1MB chips only, but you all have me wondering.
 
I'd return it and get the ClawHammer, overclock the difference, and call it a day with your doubled cache.
 
...ughh the more of this they release the more testing needs done to decide "what folds fastest" ... I'd guess the extra 200mhz would outweigh the lost cache.. anybody check yet?
 
StArWaRrIoR said:
A 3400+ @ 2.4 with 512k will run about equal to a 3400+ @ 2.2 with 1mb... while the dual channel 3500+ @ 2.2 with 512 is faster from the dual channel... ARGHHH!
Click to expand...

a newcastle has a wider (more bits) memory bus, and i'm sure performance and effeciency changes have been made to make more performance. The socket 754 (disreguarding low voltage mobile chips) are clawhammers, with half the cache disabled.
 
Guys...AMD has ceased production on their Clawhammers...they're phasing them out and they're all being replaced by the 200mhz faster Newcastles. I bet in a few months you won't be able to find a A64 1mb cache clawhammer.

and i'd take the 200mhz over the 512k cache, Mhz matters most with the A64's. More Mhz increases performance the most over than anything else. But if you really want a clawhammer, i'd grab one while you still can, they won't be around for long.
 
I think I'd rather have the 1mb L2... but I guess AMD is planning on using that as another selling point for the FX.
 
Last week bought a PIB 3400+ from newegg that turned out to be a CG with 1 MB of L2. The newcastle 3400+ is news to me.
 
Socket 754 Newcastle A64 3400+ @ 2.4GHz w/ 512KB L2 cache does exist. I went to Fry's yesterday and there it was :) It was weird, they didn't have the A64 3400+ based on the ClawHammer core.
 
SparkedFire said:
a newcastle has a wider (more bits) memory bus, and i'm sure performance and effeciency changes have been made to make more performance. The socket 754 (disreguarding low voltage mobile chips) are clawhammers, with half the cache disabled.
Click to expand...

Socket 754 ClawHammers have the full cache. 1MB L2, chief.
 
SparkedFire said:
a newcastle has a wider (more bits) memory bus, and i'm sure performance and effeciency changes have been made to make more performance. The socket 754 (disreguarding low voltage mobile chips) are clawhammers, with half the cache disabled.
Click to expand...

Socket 754 Newcastles have a 64-bit memory bus, only Socket 939 Newcastles have the 128-bit memory bus from the integrated dual-channel memory controller. The changes to the core are also available to ClawHammers, known as the CG revision. Socket 754 is ripe full of Newcastles. ClawHammers are becoming increasingly difficult to find.
 
UPDATE: The 2.4ghz/512kb L2 3400+ is *NOT* a typo. This version of the 3400+ is also detailed out in the official AMD Athlon64 Processer Power and Thermal Data Sheet.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/30430.pdf

I Must find this part!! Does anyone know whether the clock rate/cache amount is listed on the retail A64 boxes? If I'm going to phone around I need something that can be easily checked by the (generally) clueless sales people...
 
Surly said:
UPDATE: The 2.4ghz/512kb L2 3400+ is *NOT* a typo. This version of the 3400+ is also detailed out in the official AMD Athlon64 Processer Power and Thermal Data Sheet.
Click to expand...

of course it's not a typo...haven't you been reading your own thread? :confused: :p
 
so with AMD getting half the cache on the chips, they up the core speed reducing the potential overclocks :rolleyes:
 
Even so, the true Newcastles seem to oc better on average than ClawHammers.
 
I don't recall where it was, but I found a comparison between the 3200+ Clawhammer and Newcastle. The 'hammer won out in every test....took a 200mhz OC...on top of the 200 extra it already has...to stay even with the 1MB L2. I ordered a 3400+ from newegg and should have it mid-week. With my luck, I'll be the first person on the planet to recieve a Newcastle 3400+. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top