AMD Newbe: Newcastle vs Clawhammer

[stickybytes]

I've been pretty much a intel user all my life (3 intel systems, using one right now) so I don't know much about amd processors so i decided to read up a little bit on it. Their processors i'm assuming have two levels. The high end extreme level which are their athlon 64 FX series (Fx-51 and Fx-53) and their lower end which are the amd athlon 64 series.

I notice that the amd althlon amd 64 3200+ is one of the most popular amd chips used. I did a little shop hunting on newegg and i found three 3200+ chips:

one with the newcastle core: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ $282
the clawhammer core: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ also $282
and the barton core: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ much lower $187

I believe the newcastle is newer than the clawhammer core correct me if im wrong.
Which of the two amd athlon 64 processors is better in terms of performance? Since they're both priced at 282, im assuming they're performance is pretty close?

 

[dennisjai215]

uhhh... "and the barton core: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ much lower $187"
that is not an athlon 64.. they are the 32bit ones.. and yes newcastle > clawhammer the L2 cache for a64's dont matter all that much

 

[DaTute]

Right. The AMD Athlon 3200+ is a Socket A based 32-Bit only processor. Clocks at 2.2GHz with 512K L2 cache.

The Newcastle Core has 64-Bit capabilities, I believe this one has 512K Cache and clocks at 2.2Ghz.

The Clawhammer core clocks 200MHz slower, at 2Ghz, but has a larger cache, at 1MB.

I'm also interested in what the differences between Newcastle and Clawhammer 3200's are. I was hoping AT would benchmark them but nothing yet.

Personally, i'd go for 1MB Cache cos you can overclock the CPU but not the cache.

 

[mechBgon]

The Athlon64 3000+ is a good value too. Comparisons show them performing very close to the Athlon64 3200+, and they cost around $215, so if budget is an issue, remember that savings would go a long way towards buying you an extra 512MB of RAM.

 

[sao123]

Table explaining AMD & Intel CPU's from history to present. (highly detailed)


Edit: Link protected...
copy this to address bar of browser...

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040419/images/cpu_history_big.gif

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: sao123
Table explaining AMD & Intel CPU's from history to present. (highly detailed)

linky not worky...

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: sao123
Table explaining AMD & Intel CPU's from history to present. (highly detailed)

linky not worky...

Hotlink protection: Drag & drop.

 

[stickybytes]

i thank you all for your responses. after reading up so more, the barton's (athlon xps) will be phased out so there's no sense in getting them now since they will become obselete sometime next year.

As for the amd athlon 64's, i am interested. Can someone elaborate more on the differences in terms of performance between the newcastle and clawhammer core? Clawhammer has 1mb of cache and the newcastle has 512. So logically speaking, shouldn't the clawhammer be faster?

 

[PeteRoy]

Yes, the more on die cache, the better the CPU will perform, it can be more significant than processor clock rate.

This is why the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is so fast, it has 2MB L2 cache.

 

[neutralizer]

i'd go with newcastle because its cheaper and bc the pipeline is shorter, the extra cache doesn't make that big of a performance impact.

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Yes, the more on die cache, the better the CPU will perform, it can be more significant than processor clock rate.

This is why the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is so fast, it has 2MB L2 cache.

thats because the p4 has such a long pipeline. don't forget it costs an arm and a leg.

 

[DaTute]

At stock speeds, the Newcastle is faster due to the extra 200MHz. But what i'm trying to say is, could you not clock the Clawhammer 200MHz faster? Then you'd have 2 CPUs, the only difference being one having double cache. Then the clawhammer would be faster.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Yes, the more on die cache, the better the CPU will perform, it can be more significant than processor clock rate.

This is why the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is so fast, it has 2MB L2 cache.

And in everything but encoding, the FX-53 still beats it.

Stop posting !

 

[dennisjai215]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Yes, the more on die cache, the better the CPU will perform, it can be more significant than processor clock rate.

This is why the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is so fast, it has 2MB L2 cache.

once again i say DO NOT listen to pete he don't know what he is talking about.
hes just an intel fan boy who don't know his facts..

HELLO the p4EE = 512KB L2 Cache.. and 2MB L3 Cache get ur facts straight fanboy

and amd64 3200+ newcastle = 2.2ghz 512kb L2 cache, while amd64 3200+ = 2.0ghz 1MB L2 Cache...

1mb > 512kb L2 = about 5% difference in performance
2.2ghz > 2.0ghz = 10% difference in performance

ONCE again pete STOP POSTING!

 

[dennisjai215]

Originally posted by: DaTute
At stock speeds, the Newcastle is faster due to the extra 200MHz. But what i'm trying to say is, could you not clock the Clawhammer 200MHz faster? Then you'd have 2 CPUs, the only difference being one having double cache. Then the clawhammer would be faster.

if you can overclock the clawhammer 200mhz faster, what makes you think you cant overclock the newcastle 200mhz faster?

 

[DaTute]

Originally posted by: dennisjai215

Originally posted by: DaTute
At stock speeds, the Newcastle is faster due to the extra 200MHz. But what i'm trying to say is, could you not clock the Clawhammer 200MHz faster? Then you'd have 2 CPUs, the only difference being one having double cache. Then the clawhammer would be faster.

if you can overclock the clawhammer 200mhz faster, what makes you think you cant overclock the newcastle 200mhz faster?

Yeah, but this only ends when they both reach their maximum overclock. I dunno how good each core is, the Clawhammer may OC better than the Newcastle. It all depends how much the user is prepared to overclock, and how far the CPU will go under the given conditions. Personally, I always thought cache helped more, although I admit I may be wrong. This is why I want AT to do a comparison.

 

[blackpool9]

Originally posted by: DaTute
Right. The AMD Athlon 3200+ is a Socket A based 32-Bit only processor. Clocks at 2.2GHz with 512K L2 cache.

The Newcastle Core has 64-Bit capabilities, I believe this one has 512K Cache and clocks at 2.2Ghz.

The Clawhammer core clocks 200MHz slower, at 2Ghz, but has a larger cache, at 1MB.

I'm also interested in what the differences between Newcastle and Clawhammer 3200's are. I was hoping AT would benchmark them but nothing yet.

Personally, i'd go for 1MB Cache cos you can overclock the CPU but not the cache.

I found a benchmarking article, I believe on Tom's but I'm not sure, that had benchmark scores for both the Newcastle and Clawhammer cores, among other CPUs. The Newcastle had slight advantages over the Clawhammer in just about every test. However, DaTute is correct. You can't "overclock" a cache, but you can boost clockspeed. That's why, when I ordered my A64 3200+, I got the Clawhammer. Planning on OC'ing it to at least 2.2Ghz, making it, in essence, a 3400+. A 3400+ Clawhammer will outperform a 3200+ Newcastle in just about any benchmark.

Fedex dropped off my new mobo and CPU this morning at work, I'm sitting here staring at the box right now, wishing the clock on the wall to move a little faster. Can't wait to get home...

 

[dennisjai215]

but the point is ur comparing a overclocked item to a non overclocked item... give them equal boosts and newcastle will win... dont tell me you would plan to buya 3200+ clawhammer @ 1mb L2 and clock it to 2.2ghz.. and then buy a 3200+ newcastle @ 512kb L2 @ 2.2ghz AND not PLAN TO OVERCLOCK it? i think not... since the same price for perfomance newcastle wins i would choose newcastle

 

[manymoons]

do the newcastle's not run slightly cooler too as they have half the L2 cache and so the die size is smaller?

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: DaTute
Right. The AMD Athlon 3200+ is a Socket A based 32-Bit only processor. Clocks at 2.2GHz with 512K L2 cache.

The Newcastle Core has 64-Bit capabilities, I believe this one has 512K Cache and clocks at 2.2Ghz.

The Clawhammer core clocks 200MHz slower, at 2Ghz, but has a larger cache, at 1MB.

I'm also interested in what the differences between Newcastle and Clawhammer 3200's are. I was hoping AT would benchmark them but nothing yet.

Personally, i'd go for 1MB Cache cos you can overclock the CPU but not the cache.

When you overclock the CPU, you are overclocking the cache, it's on-die on all Athlon64's(and all XP's for that matter).

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: sao123
Table explaining AMD & Intel CPU's from history to present. (highly detailed)

linky not worky...

Hotlink protection: Drag & drop.

doesn't work either :Q

edit: nm a simple ctrl-f5 fixed it

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: manymoons
do the newcastle's not run slightly cooler too as they have half the L2 cache and so the die size is smaller?

Actually, the Newcastle core is apparantly the same(according to Tom's Hardware, see chart), it's just that half the cache is disabled. In theory, it runs slightly cooler because of non-use, but I don't know if the cache is powered up or not, which would be the biggest factor.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: manymoons
do the newcastle's not run slightly cooler too as they have half the L2 cache and so the die size is smaller?

Actually, the Newcastle core is apparantly the same(according to Tom's Hardware, see chart), it's just that half the cache is disabled. In theory, it runs slightly cooler because of non-use, but I don't know if the cache is powered up or not, which would be the biggest factor.

It will run cooler even if it is "powered up"; most of the power draw in CMOS transistors comes when they are switched -- the steady-state power drain is relatively small.

One concern that has been voiced (although I have not seen any tests of this) is that the ClawHammer A64s (with 1MB of L2 cache) may not OC as well as the Newcastles (with 512KB of L2 cache), because the larger cache may not be able to handle the higher clockspeeds as well. But if they're really the same core with half the cache going unused, I doubt this would be a very big factor.

 

[snappyfool]

is there much difference in it? i've got an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Clawhammer... i'm wondering if it's still good or not because it's clawhammer and not newcastle.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Yes, the more on die cache, the better the CPU will perform, it can be more significant than processor clock rate.

This is why the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is so fast, it has 2MB L2 cache.

Oh man. I can't believe you're still posting this trash. How was your vacation?