/ Sign-up
Your question

What core was the old A64 3200 1mb?

  • CPUs
  • Core
Last response: in CPUs
October 10, 2004 11:40:28 PM

Yeah, what core was the old A64 3200+ 1mb L2?

Was there anything wrong with this chip, or did AMD just decide to lower the cache size to 512mb for performance/price reasons and thats why they discontinued this type of cpu?

I ask because a local store has one left.

More about : core a64 3200 1mb

October 11, 2004 1:21:17 AM

The core was the clawhammer. The only reason they don't use it any more is because yields aren't as high as the 512kb models. Some the the earlier 3000+ were clawhammers that didn't have 1mb of functional cache, so they deactiviated half of it and viola, 512kb.

oh, its a nice day. TO EAT CHILDREN!!!
October 11, 2004 3:06:57 AM

What do you mean yeilds?

As in having 1mb isnt much performance diff?

I ask because the 3200 1mb is clocked slower, at 2.0ghz, rather than the 3200 512kb's 2.2ghz.

Which one, given they are the same price, would be a better buy?
Related resources
October 11, 2004 3:11:34 AM

i'd get the clawhammer and some pc3500 ram, run the fsb at 210, then you'll have the advantages of both.

Watch out for the <b><font color=red>bloody</font color=red></b> Fanboys!

AMD64 2800+ :: MSI Neo-Fis2r :: 1024mb Kingmax ddr400 :: Sapphire 9800pro 128mb :: 10K WD Raptor

Addicted, finally.
October 11, 2004 3:14:09 AM

See, heres my choices...

A64 3200+ 1mb cache at 2.0ghz for $200


A64 3000+ 512kb cache at 2.0ghz for $150

Thy are clocked the same, but the 3200 has more cache but is $50 more. Not concerned about the $50 since computer is my life so ignore that..

So, whats faster between those two choices? I always overclock a little, or maybe a medium amount, keep that in mind.
October 11, 2004 5:45:16 AM

The 2 should OC just about the same. Then you end up with one chip that is about 5% faster, because it has extra cache. Is 5% worth $50 ?