Expert opinion needed !!


Apr 3, 2004

First I would like to say that I read the first post of how to choose a CPU but as I might be putting together myself a computer for next 5 years ;) i would like to ask it over.

I have to choose from those options:

CPU Desktop Athlon 64 3200+ (1MB,Clawhammer,S754) box
CPU Desktop Athlon 64 3200+ (512KB,Newcastle,S754) box
CPU Desktop Athlon 64 3200+ (512KB,Winchester,S939) box

or from the intel side

CPU Desktop Pentium 4 540 3.2GHz (800MHz,1MB,S775) box

Specially I would like to get feedback on AMD Clawhammer and Newcastle. Those are the ones I was choosing from before i had the idea to ask from those who know more ;)

Thank you much ahead, I really need an expert opinion.




Nov 30, 2004
Well im hardly an expert but id drop the Intel one right away. In all the tests iv read AMD comes out on top except for some video encoding tasks. Amongst the others, the more cache the better I suppose but i couldnt really advise you.


Apr 3, 2004
mhm, i thought it myself also, that the more cache the better, but then I read an article where was sayed that Clawhammer HAS more cache BUT Newcastle is newer technology + it is 200mhz faster and that makes up for the cache and even more. Although it is confusing that the shop that sells em in my area has a info page that claims that Newcastle is also 2000Mhz but i already sent em a mail asking about it ... So .. WHAT should i CHOOSE :( though question


Sep 12, 2001
If you plan on keeping the computer for 5years I would go with the winchester socket939, it is clocked slightly slower than the newcastle but will overclock a lot better (thats if you want to overclock) also socket 939 will be around for a while, socket754 is not going to be used for much longer.
However if you dont want to overclock and dont plan on getting upgrading the CPU in the next few years get the newcastle.

The clawhammer has a larger cache at the cost of reduced clock speed.


Jun 26, 2002
Without any doubt and hesitation, pick the <b>2.2 GHz Newcastle 3200+</b>. It's the best, and costs the least among all variations of 3200+

<font color=orange><b><A HREF="" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>


Dec 31, 2002
Without knowing your computing habits/needs/budget/etc., it's difficult to offer a beneficial opinion.

Good luck on any of those cpu's lasting you 5 years.

<b><i>Powered by <font color=blue>V</font color=blue><font color=purple>E</font color=purple><font color=red>R</font color=red><font color=purple>T</font color=purple><font color=blue>O</font color=blue></b>
Fueled by <b><font color=blue>CL-</font color=blue><font color=red>ONE</font color=red></b>
The Newcastle s754 has the best price/performance ratio on the street for someone who doesn't plan to upgrade their CPU or vid card in the short term. If you plan on keeping this computer as is until you buy/build your next computer, then I think your best bet is the Newcastle 3200+. The s939 chips seem to have a lot larger potential for OCing, but it takes other higher quality components to do it successfull - i.e. better memory, PSU, system cooling. It also takes getting a specific CPU that tolerates OCing well and you'll find that getting that perfect CPU for OCing can be hit and miss.

The s939 is clocked 200Mhz slower than a similarly rated s754 - a s754 3000+ is 2.0Ghz and the s939 3000Mhz is 1.8Ghz. The advantage to the s939 is dual channel memory and mobos that have PCIe. The dual channel memory does not overcome the 200Mhz disadvantage. Actually, a s754 Newcastle 3000+ should be as fast as a s939 Winchester 3200+ and the Winnie costs $80 more here in the states!

Have you read the FAQ? Looked for previous posts on this topic?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Rugger on 02/10/05 10:05 AM.</EM></FONT></P>


"The s939 is clocked 200Mhz slower than a similarly rated s754 - a s754 3000+ is 2.2Ghz and the s939 3000Mhz is 2Ghz."

Wrong! A 754 3000+ is clocked at 2.0 GHz. the 939 3000+ is clocked a 1.8Ghz.

"Have you read the FAQ? Looked for previous posts on this topic?"

I was going to ask you???

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!


Former Staff
I noticed you mentioned cache, well, the new P4's are slower in most applications than the previous version, even though they have 2x as much cache. The newer version has a deeper pipeline that takes longer to respond.

Considering that these newer P4's (with a core named Prescott) also run extremely hot, they're a bad deal for nearly anyone.

If you're the kind of person who replaces whole systems rather than upgrades the CPU, I'd suggest the Socket 754 processors are a good option, and higher frequency beats more cache.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>