ClawHammer vs Newcastle

[-0MEGA-] · 10-12-2005, 11:33 AM

I'm looking to buy a new cpu, and i came accross two Athlon 64 2800+'s, one is a newcastle one is a clawhammer. They are the same price, the specs look the same, but the newcastle has 101 reviews vs the clawhammers 40, so what ones is better? I will be overclocking, so i would like to know whats better for oc'in.

[-0MEGA-] · 10-13-2005, 02:36 AM

anyone?

Ku-sama · 10-13-2005, 02:37 AM

clawhammer:1MB cache
NewCastle: 512KB cache

Get the Clawhammer

**Praetor** · 10-13-2005, 02:42 AM

Well get the cheaper of the two (which should be the Newcastle) ... now if its an issue of a faster Newcastle (with less cache) comapred to a slower Clawhammer (but with more cache), get the newcastle .... AMD chips have never been cachebound anyways so you probably wouldnt see any performance gain

Ku-sama · 10-13-2005, 02:50 AM

but, isnt the cache diffrenct between the SD core and the Venice core the reason why the SD core won?

**Praetor** · 10-13-2005, 02:54 AM

1. Well between SanDiego and Venice, id still get the Venice ... again, current generation AMD chips arent cachebound, id save the money from the cache and spend it on getting the extra multiplier.
2. Sure, if clocked the same, a SanDiego will outperform a Venice but not by anything anyone will notice ... and since they often arent clocked the same, id rather take an extra 200Mhz over 512K cache

[-0MEGA-] · 10-13-2005, 02:58 AM

praetor, talk about staying on topic, lol, this is about the Clawhammer vs Newcastle.

and ku-sama, i said they have the same specs, meaning the same cache size, here are the links: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103485 and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103452

**Praetor** · 10-13-2005, 03:04 AM

Quote:

praetor, talk about staying on topic, lol, this is about the Clawhammer vs Newcastle.

1. Congrats: read the posts again.
2. Using a bit of brainpower you can see we can apply SD/V with C/NC .... maybe thats me expecting a bit much, but i wouldnt think so

Quote:

and ku-sama, i said they have the same specs, meaning the same cache size, here are the links:

Well if you trust Newegg ....
1. Clawhammers with 512K (ADA2800AEP4AP, ADA2800AEP4AR) have the transistor count of the Clawhammers with 1MB
2. The Newcastle (ADA2800AEP4AX) is a DH7-CG chip and has the right number of transistors for 512K .... now stopping to think about what this means for OCing, it would suggest that the Newcastle is the superior chip.

Ku-sama · 10-13-2005, 03:04 AM

get the one that sounds cooler?

mgoldb2 · 10-13-2005, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ku-sama

clawhammer:1MB cache
NewCastle: 512KB cache

Get the Clawhammer

Your information is wrong when it comes to the athlon 64 2800+

There are 3 versions
2 clawhammers both with 512kb cache
1 newcastle with 512kb cache.

your aurgument does not hold even if I thought cache was important. Which means he should go with what ever cheaper which is most likly the newcastle.

10-12-2005, 11:33 AM	#1 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 20 Posts: 27,082	ClawHammer vs Newcastle I'm looking to buy a new cpu, and i came accross two Athlon 64 2800+'s, one is a newcastle one is a clawhammer. They are the same price, the specs look the same, but the newcastle has 101 reviews vs the clawhammers 40, so what ones is better? I will be overclocking, so i would like to know whats better for oc'in. __________________ Desktop // Laptop Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz // Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 // Intel PM45 ATI 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 // 512MB GDDR3 9800M GTS 4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2 940 // 4GB DDR3 800 750GB SATAII w/32MB // 200GB SATAII 7200RPM Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 21391 // 9179

10-13-2005, 02:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 20 Posts: 27,082	anyone? __________________ Desktop // Laptop Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz // Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 // Intel PM45 ATI 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 // 512MB GDDR3 9800M GTS 4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2 940 // 4GB DDR3 800 750GB SATAII w/32MB // 200GB SATAII 7200RPM Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 21391 // 9179

10-13-2005, 02:42 AM	#4 (permalink)
Praetor Administrator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canada Age: 25 Posts: 19,954	Well get the cheaper of the two (which should be the Newcastle) ... now if its an issue of a faster Newcastle (with less cache) comapred to a slower Clawhammer (but with more cache), get the newcastle .... AMD chips have never been cachebound anyways so you probably wouldnt see any performance gain __________________ ASUS P5K Premium WiFi-AP, Q6600@3.7 / ASUS P5ND, E6400@3.8 4GB OCz Platinum XTC 8500 / 4GB CorsairXMS2 6400 5x500GB Seagate 7200.10 / 2x500 Seagate 7200.10 OCz 8800GTX 768MB @ 630/800 / 2x Galaxy 8800GT SLI

10-13-2005, 02:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
Praetor Administrator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canada Age: 25 Posts: 19,954	1. Well between SanDiego and Venice, id still get the Venice ... again, current generation AMD chips arent cachebound, id save the money from the cache and spend it on getting the extra multiplier. 2. Sure, if clocked the same, a SanDiego will outperform a Venice but not by anything anyone will notice ... and since they often arent clocked the same, id rather take an extra 200Mhz over 512K cache __________________ ASUS P5K Premium WiFi-AP, Q6600@3.7 / ASUS P5ND, E6400@3.8 4GB OCz Platinum XTC 8500 / 4GB CorsairXMS2 6400 5x500GB Seagate 7200.10 / 2x500 Seagate 7200.10 OCz 8800GTX 768MB @ 630/800 / 2x Galaxy 8800GT SLI

10-13-2005, 02:58 AM	#7 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 20 Posts: 27,082	praetor, talk about staying on topic, lol, this is about the Clawhammer vs Newcastle. and ku-sama, i said they have the same specs, meaning the same cache size, here are the links: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103485 and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103452 __________________ Desktop // Laptop Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz // Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 // Intel PM45 ATI 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 // 512MB GDDR3 9800M GTS 4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2 940 // 4GB DDR3 800 750GB SATAII w/32MB // 200GB SATAII 7200RPM Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 21391 // 9179

10-13-2005, 02:37 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ku-sama banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Computer Cave. AKA: King Computer Inc. Age: 18 Posts: 5,312	clawhammer:1MB cache NewCastle: 512KB cache Get the Clawhammer

10-13-2005, 02:50 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ku-sama banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Computer Cave. AKA: King Computer Inc. Age: 18 Posts: 5,312	but, isnt the cache diffrenct between the SD core and the Venice core the reason why the SD core won?

10-13-2005, 03:04 AM	#9 (permalink)
Ku-sama banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Computer Cave. AKA: King Computer Inc. Age: 18 Posts: 5,312	get the one that sounds cooler?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode