upgrading to 64 bit.. processor question

S

schapman

Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
721
I'm finally making the move to 64 bit and am wondering about cores. I'm planning on getting this:

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=12842&vpn=ADA3000BIBOX&manufacture=AMD

and am wondering if its the right/best one for me. Money is an object and I'll be pairing it up with:
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=12644&vpn=AV8-3RDEYE&manufacture=ABit


Is there another s939 I should be looking at? I'm in canada too, so the egg doesnt work for me. I havent been following the 64 bits for a while so whats the difference between the winchester and newcastle cores? and which processors have them?



edit: I probably won't be overclocking this one at all.. since whenever I feel like o/c'ing to get a speed boost.. I usually end up upgrading ;)
 
Dude if u got a AXP @ 2.2ghz why arent u at least going to try and match that on an A64 setup??
Difference between the Newcastle core and the Winchester core is that the Winchester uses the .09micron and runs at 1.4v compared to the Newcastle which uses the .13micron on 1.5v.
Ps. I hope u know that the 3000+ 939 runs @ 1.8ghz and is a winchester which is the better of the 2 cores IMO, it runs cooler and u can likely OC more than on the newcastles.
 
well.. I "say" I'm not going to o/c, but I'm sure I'll end up doing it :)

So I'm guessing the chip I picked there is the better one to take? As far as I knew all the socket 939s were 90nm. Guess that looks right then


P.S. the uguru module.. however lame and useless.. is sexy. More lights and blinkeys = awsome :)
 
if you have a barton at 2.2 and you aren't going to o/c, don't bother with the A64 it won't be as fast.
 
Well.. I'm sure I'll do what I can do get it up to around 2.2GHz, but I was under the impression that the switch to the 64 bit chips made a large difference already (regardless of clock speed). Also, I'm going to be working with the 64 bit version of windows as well as linux at the same time which is one of the reasons for upgrading.
 
The difference in clock speed clock for clock is real, but isn't as big as it's made out to be.

Depends on the app of course.

Raw processing power over the AXP isn't signifigant as long as the data would fit in cache, it gets most of it's benefit from the integrated memory controller.

In x86-64 mode, there are more functional registers to use which also really helps speeding up execution.

So yeah a 1.8ghz A64 won't really match up all that well, but a 2, 2.2, or 2.4 really will knock your socks off.
 
Yep, if you arent going to aim for at least 2.2ghz like your barton i wouldnt even bother buying an A64. You cant justify the cost by just saying "its 64bits" tho. Its still 400mhz slower :p
 
Yeah.. but for now I can't even O/C my barton (too lazy to update the sig for it) because world of warcraft tanks constantly when I do. Everything else runs rock solid, but WoW seems to be really picky.
 
Fully_Sik said:
Dude if u got a AXP @ 2.2ghz why arent u at least going to try and match that on an A64 setup??
Difference between the Newcastle core and the Winchester core is that the Winchester uses the .09micron and runs at 1.4v compared to the Newcastle which uses the .13micron on 1.5v.
Ps. I hope u know that the 3000+ 939 runs @ 1.8ghz and is a winchester which is the better of the 2 cores IMO, it runs cooler and u can likely OC more than on the newcastles.
Click to expand...

My experience with Winchester is that it's also got more stability and reliability problems than the others. I'm sticking with Newcastles from now on. OC is far less important that being able to use your computer.
 
lopoetve said:
My experience with Winchester is that it's also got more stability and reliability problems than the others. I'm sticking with Newcastles from now on. OC is far less important that being able to use your computer.
Click to expand...

I've had no problems with my winchester man so i couldnt say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top