Newcastle vs Clawhammer

D

dano

Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
686
Whats the difference in real world terms of having the 1 meg cache vs the 512kb?
I'm looking to upgrade and can get the 3200 Clawhamer but it's a fair bit more money than the Newcastle version so I'm wondering if it's worth it really.
Thanks,
Dano.
 
The Newcastle core will beat the Clawhammer core at certain things. IMHO, it's not worth it for the 2-3% if whoever you're buying the core from is charging too much money for it. Just grab yourself a 2.2ghz Newcastle and overclock it to 2.4ghz (most chips do this with stock voltage and stock cooling). You'll have a 3400+ Newcastle for the cost of a 3200.
 
theres a search button this questions gets asked once to 3 times a week.
 
"theres a search button this questions gets asked once to 3 times a week."

And if you don't feel like answering it, then why respond at all? Do you know how many times the search function hasn't worked on these forums? If that's all you can say, then don't even bother to post a reply.
 
usually its on the first page or 2 so really you dont have to look far.
 
Usually people comment on the 1 MB L2 cache being an advantage, butt don't take the extra 200 MHz clock speed in consideration. I don't know which one's best.
 
The CH will perform better and better (you can say.. exponentially better) as the clock speed rises linearly; while an NC will perform better linearly as the clock also rises linearly. You can see the effect of that fairly early one, a 2.5GHz CH is about as good as a 2.8GHz NC, not a 2.7GHz one as you would normally think.
 
the debate is arguable. 1mb cache vs 200mhz clockspeed difference. both have their advantages and disadvantages.

in any case, clawhammers seem harder to come by with each passing day, so sooner or later you will be forced to buy the newcastle version.
 
yeah, and one thing to remember if you oc... you should be able to get your clawhammer up to 2.4ghz without much of a problem at all (all i had to do was bump up the voltage .05v..)
a 2.4ghz clawhammer will beat a 2.5ghz newcastle in just about everything
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
yeah, and one thing to remember if you oc... you should be able to get your clawhammer up to 2.4ghz without much of a problem at all (all i had to do was bump up the voltage .05v..)
a 2.4ghz clawhammer will beat a 2.5ghz newcastle in just about everything
Click to expand...

In synthetic benchmarks. :eek:
In gaming the cache means almost nothing.
 
To answer your question.... you ask whats the real world difference between 512mb and 1024mb cache...hmmm lets see hey its a difference of 512mb of cache. Crap im sorry you asked the difference between 512 and 1 meg that would be 500 megs my fault oops.
 
Shane said:
To answer your question.... you ask whats the real world difference between 512mb and 1024mb cache...hmmm lets see hey its a difference of 512mb of cache.
Click to expand...

the newcastle and clawhammer cores have 512KB and 1024KB of L2 cache respectively. bigg difference :p.
 
Wow Maxxo buddy your a genious... wait nm my Parrot does the same thing.
 
Darth_Fluffy said:
I don't suppose it will become any less cache-dependant after I read it?
Click to expand...

It's up to you if you want to base your processor selection decisions on an engine that's four years old. There's a reason why AMD chose to phase out the 1MB. I know for a fact I won't miss that extra 100FPS when the game's already hitting 300+.
 
Shane said:
Wow Maxxo buddy your a genious... wait nm my Parrot does the same thing.
Click to expand...

lol. there's no need for personal insults on this forum, take them somewhere else.
 
The 1024kb cache does perform slightly better then the 512kb as seen in that review.
I can get an OEM 3200 1mb cache version for $220, and a retail one for $249. I'm sure there's better but I'm just talking about the shops that are in town.
 
heatsinker said:
It's up to you if you want to base your processor selection decisions on an engine that's four years old. There's a reason why AMD chose to phase out the 1MB. I know for a fact I won't miss that extra 100FPS when the game's already hitting 300+.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Doom³ is a more elaborate Quake III engine. The core logic is almost the same. Either way, it was only an example. There are other games which write to cache, not just Quake III...
 
Darth_Fluffy said:
Yes, but Doom³ is a more elaborate Quake III engine. The core logic is almost the same. Either way, it was only an example. There are other games which write to cache, not just Quake III...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're missing the point. There are plenty of games that write to cache, but the fact remains the same: difference between 512K and 1MB cache in gaming is slim to none. It's not completely useless, but should you pay more for it? Um, no.
 
Even more important than cache in my opinion is the memory controller. The Newcastle memory controller is far more compatible/flexible, especially with multiple DIMMS. The ability to change between 1T and 2T is huge if you happen to get RAM thats cheap or add RAM later thats dramatically different in quality.
 
heatsinker said:
Unfortunately, you're missing the point. There are plenty of games that write to cache, but the fact remains the same: difference between 512K and 1MB cache in gaming is slim to none. It's not completely useless, but should you pay more for it? Um, no.
Click to expand...
Yet again, there are games where the extra 512k makes a world of difference. So, what point am I missing?
 
A64 3200+ Newcastle > A64 3200+ Clawhammer

The 200MHz is more beneficial in several situations than the extra 512K. Maybe anything above 512 is the point of diminishing returns.
 
ShepsCrook said:
The 1024kb cache does perform slightly better then the 512kb as seen in that review.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm seeing things the wrong way, but to me it seems as if the 2200 MHz Newcastle is outperforming the 2000 MHz Clawhammer in all the benchmarks.

Everyone says it's the other way around.
:confused:
 
Esben said:
Perhaps I'm seeing things the wrong way, but to me it seems as if the 2200 MHz Newcastle is outperforming the 2000 MHz Clawhammer in all the benchmarks.

Everyone says it's the other way around.
:confused:
Click to expand...

At the same clockspeed, the extra cache gives the Clawhammer a boost, but when you compare the nomenclature (3000+ to 3000+), the Newcastle clearly has the edge.

So yea, you're seeing the right thing.
 
The Newcastle can outperforum the Clawhammer, I seen it dozens of times. Not only does the Newcastle have 200mhz more of clock it is a newer core then the Clawhammer; even though the Clawhammer has more cache then the, Newcastle no programs need to use all of that cache yet. But when the 64-bit OS (Long-Horn, maybe 2005) and 64-bit programs come out, it will starve then CPU which is where the Clawhammer core comes in with 1MB of cache comes into play. With 512KB there will probably not be enough, of a wait room for the CPU Fig rally speaking.
 
OldPueblo said:
Even more important than cache in my opinion is the memory controller. The Newcastle memory controller is far more compatible/flexible, especially with multiple DIMMS. The ability to change between 1T and 2T is huge if you happen to get RAM thats cheap or add RAM later thats dramatically different in quality.
Click to expand...

i think you're referring to the difference between the co and cg cores, not newcastle and clawhammer. i have a clawhammer (cg) with which i can run two sticks of old kingston memory in just about any configuration i want up to 300htt (keeping the mem below 230mhz of course)
plus, i have the option in my bios to set the ram to either 1t or 2t
and an additional thing to note, the nf2 required 2.7v to get my ram to run stable, now this nf3 only takes 2.6v...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top