clawhammer vs newcastle

Tommunist · Jul 22, 2004

I see that the clawhammer has a larger L2 cache but it seems the newcastle is more often reccommened. Is the larger L2 cache not worth the extra bucks? I've been out of the hardware loop for about a year now so I'm kind of in the dark about what/if there are any other differences. Any information would be appreciated - thanks

"Don't question it!!!" - Err

TheRod · Jul 22, 2004

The extra cache don't compensate for the extra 200MHz of speed. In most situation the 512K will be faster at stock speed. If you plan to overclock, the 1024K might have more headroom, since it's slower (at default speed).

--
Asus A7N8X / AMD Sempron 2800+ (tbred @ 167x12)
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
Built by ATI Radeon 8500LE 128Megs @ C:275/M:290Edited by TheRod on 07/22/04 11:02 AM.

Tommunist · Jul 22, 2004

so what you are saying is that the PR numbers for these two versions of the A64 don't equal the same actual clock numbers? (I know the PR # doesn't equal the clock number so hopefully my question is clear)

"Don't question it!!!" - ErrEdited by Tommunist on 07/22/04 11:58 AM.

TheRod · Jul 22, 2004

The AMD64 PR is there to give P4C/E vs A64 comparison. AMD used rounded value to rate their CPU. You must understand that the difference in performance between the 512K and 1Megs 3200+ are marginal, it is why they get the SAME rating.

Here is a list of the AMD64 CPU sorted by performance from the slowest to the fastest :

Athlon XP 3200+ (SocketA/2200MHz/512K)
Athlon 64 2800+ (S754/1800MHz/512K)
Athlon 64 3000+ (S754/2000MHz/512K)
Athlon 64 3200+ (S754/2000MHz/1024K)
Athlon 64 3200+ (S754/2200MHz/512K)
Athlon 64 3400+ (S754/2200MHz/1024K)
Athlon 64 3500+ (S939/2200MHz/512K)
Athlon 64 3400+ (S754/2400MHz/512K)
Athlon 64 3700+ (S754/2400MHz/1024K)
Athlon 64 3800+ (S939/2400MHz/512K)
Athlon 64 FX-53 (S939/2400MHz/1024K)

I included the Athlon XP 3200+ because it's PR was not calculated in the same way, the Athlon XP 3200+ is a bit slower than the Athlon 64 2800+. The only situation where the new PR (for AMD64) is a bit biased is for the 3400+ and 3500+ CPUs. But, the Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.4GHz is not available on the market. If you search places like www.pricewatch.com, you will not find it for sale. So, I could have removed it from the list...

You can <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=179754#179754" target="_new">read this thread</A>, I had some fun with PR a few weeks ago.

--
Asus A7N8X / AMD Sempron 2800+ (tbred @ 167x12)
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
Built by ATI Radeon 8500LE 128Megs @ C:275/M:290

Tommunist · Jul 22, 2004

Yeah - I knew the PR was sort of for comparison to the P4s, but what I didn't know was that it wasn't even a constant relationship within the AMD family. One would expect the the 1M cache varient of the 3200+ to perform better than the 512k varient (I figured the clock speeds would be the same). This PR rating business didn't seem as confusing when you could at least count on it to have a close relationship to clock speed within the AMD line of CPUs.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err

TheRod · Jul 22, 2004

When clock speed is equal more cache equal more performance. But in the AMD64 architecture, the clock speed have more influence than cache size. Intel P4 suffer much of cache size reduction (see Celeron performance).

And AMD choose to offer different version of the same chip, because they have better yields this way! So, if a chip have defective cache, they deactivate the defective part and they can sell it with a lower PR.

This PR rating business didn't seem as confusing when you could at least count on it to have a close relationship to clock speed within the AMD line of CPUs.

The problem with clock speed rating is that there is much more than the core speed that affect CPU performance. It's not without reason that Intel is switching to model numbers too. Because they want to slowly destry the "MHz-Myth" that Intel build in the past.

When you check today's Intel line-up, there is a lot of speed grade in different CPU family, so how to make sure people will understand that the Dothan 2.0GHz is faster than P4C 2.4GHz or a Celeron 2.8GHz??? By model number, the higher the model number, the higher the performance.

AMD respect their rating and they don't want to push it to the limit... If they were doing this we would have model numbers like 3175+ or 3250+ and this would add complexity for no reason. In today's cpu, difference of 1 or 2% don't mean much.

So for your CPU choice, it's up to you? Do you want a bit more performance and lower cache at stock speed or a bit less perf. for more cache? you have the choice!

choosing between Athlon 64 3200+ with 512K or 1024K of cache, is like choosing between Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton) or Athlon XP 2600+ (t-bred), you want clock speed or cache size?

--
Asus A7N8X / AMD Sempron 2800+ (tbred @ 167x12)
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
Built by ATI Radeon 8500LE 128Megs @ C:275/M:290

Tommunist · Jul 23, 2004

I want both!

I'm just messing with you - that thing about selling defective chips at a lower PR number is sketchy! Tricky bastards!

"Don't question it!!!" - Err

gobeavers · Jul 23, 2004

Is the athlon64 PR rating comparing P4 to A64? Because the XP's were comparing the theoretical thunderbird performance to the athlong XP. So, I would have thought they would keep that the same.

"Go forward until the last round is fired and the last drop of gas is expended...then go forward on foot!" -Patton

Schmide · Jul 23, 2004

Yeah I couldn't not find them at <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-484&depa=1" target="_new">newegg</A>.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...

TheRod · Jul 23, 2004

AMD have changed their rating, because since the introduction of the P4C, the XP rating is very "generous" and this give hard time to customers. People might that that the XP 3200+ is equal to a P4C 3.2GHz when it'S not true. So, AMD introduced their new rating that reflect performance of their AMD64 vs P4C/E more accuratly. But, since AMD64 and Northwood/Prescott are very different in certain aspect the PR is too generous or too low. But overall, it is quite fair to compare a P4C 3.2GHz with an Athlon 64 3200+.

The only problem with this new rating is that you get Athlon XP 3200+ and Athlon 64 2800+ that are, in fact, performing mostly equally. This can be hard for customer to get use to it... But it's not worst than Celeron 2.8GHz vs P4C/E 2.8GHz. The P4C is obviously faster, but for potential customer the lower price tag of Celeron may influence their decision. Many will think that both processor are equal.

--
Asus A7N8X / AMD Sempron 2800+ (tbred @ 167x12)
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
Built by ATI Radeon 8500LE 128Megs @ C:275/M:290

TheRod · Jul 23, 2004

I found it for sale : <A HREF="http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=ADA3400AEP5AP&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=wf&scoring=p" target="_new">ADA3400AEP5AP</A>

Quite interesting to still find it.

--
Asus A7N8X / AMD Sempron 2800+ (tbred @ 167x12)
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
Built by ATI Radeon 8500LE 128Megs @ C:275/M:290

Search

clawhammer vs newcastle

Tommunist

Distinguished

TheRod

Distinguished

Tommunist

Distinguished

TheRod

Distinguished

Tommunist

Distinguished

TheRod

Distinguished

Tommunist

Distinguished

gobeavers

Distinguished

Schmide

Distinguished

TheRod

Distinguished

TheRod

Distinguished

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page