I looking to for benchmarks on those 2 verison of those cpus: 3200 newcastle (2.2 ghz, 512kb cache)/ claw hammer (2ghz/1MB) and the 3400 (2.4ghz/512kb chace)/ (2ghz/1MB). Was trying figure which was faster for sure. I ALMOST sure the version with 200 more mhz version is faster, however I can't find benchmark showing 2 version of those together to prove. So wondering what do you guys think is faster?
Also I heard AMD is phaseing the clawhammers and just going leave newcastle versions for those CPUs. Is that true? If it is true, it would make sense if newcastle core for those CPU are indeed faster vs the clawhammer.
Newcastle is faster. Extra 512k has very little effect on A64 performance .
AMD has stopped producing Clawhammers. They are now only producing Newcastle, because it's cheaper to produce. Eventually, Clawhammers will go away from market.
Amd is dumping the clawhammer, because they are more expensive to make ( larger chip size) If you OC, the clawhammer is slightly better, as they will generally clock as high as the newcastle, and then have the extra cache as well.
The newcastle performs better in some things, not as well in others, but they are close.
anyone try Fosters ? I bet its better than newcastle.
<i> <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b>
I like my newcastle, the A64 doesn't need extra cache as much to perform. because of hypertrasnport technology (onboard memory controller). the system ram is basically running at almost same speed as the cpu. no more frontside bus limitations.
<font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> 
