Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A64 3500 Newcastle vs Winchester

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 16, 2004 4:16:28 PM

Hi,

I'm just about to buy a new gaming system:
A64 3500+
1GB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev 2
MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum
Thermaltake SLK-948U + Vantec Stealth 92mm
Artic Cooling Silentium T1 case
BFG 6800 GT OC

and suddenly I discover that overclockers.co.uk now have a 3500+ Newcastle 130nm or a 3500+ Winchester 90nm.

Would it be more sensible to go with the 90nm core or the 130nm? I intend to overclock the memory heavily, I believe I should be able to take it up to DDR550.

Thanks for your opinions.
Cheers,
Mark
October 16, 2004 4:44:54 PM

I'd get the 90nm version, even if it is an early version and the 90nm has not been fully tweaked by AMD.

What cooling will you be using?

_______________________
Whos round is it? Down that beer quick, smash my glass down, fall over the table - all rowdy and pissed
Related resources
October 18, 2004 10:01:31 AM

Thank you all.
90nm it is then.
October 18, 2004 12:34:24 PM

Quote:
Thank you all.
90nm it is then.

Good choice! But basically your question was easily answered... If we compare this to cars!

Would you buy a 2004 or a 2005 model (that was a bit tweaked compared to 2004 model) if both of them are in the showroom at nearly the same price? Everyone would get the 2005!

Have fun with your 90nm CPU! And please try to overclock it and post your results here! :) 

--
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>AMD Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green> <-- <i>Is this affecting my credibility???</i>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290
October 18, 2004 4:51:53 PM

<pre> Yes, then it will be getting down to about the size of your e-penis...muhaaahaaahhaaaaaa </pre><p>_____________________________________________
<font color=red> And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign </font color=red>
October 18, 2004 7:41:16 PM

You know what's funny is that I ordered my 3500+ about 2 weeks ago thinking it was a Newcastle core, but when everything was built I ran CPUID last night and was suprised to see that it was actually the 90nm Winchester core. Pretty nice surprise if you ask me

----------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP 2100+ stock
Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe
1GB generic RAM
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 360/335
October 18, 2004 10:11:32 PM

:) 
I'm glad to hear that the 2005 showroom model hasn't got any 90nm manufacturing issues. I don't like to jump on a band wagon right at the start only to find out about early teething problems.
I think I've mixed enough metaphors for one post.
October 18, 2004 10:12:52 PM

Have you any overclocking results to share?
October 18, 2004 11:50:01 PM

Whats weird is my 3000+ Newcastle skt754 comes up as 90nm in id programs, i didnt know they made 3000+ 90nms? I dunno...
October 19, 2004 12:54:40 AM

Not yet, but I certainly have the heatsink for it (Swiftech MCX 6400-V) so when I get to it, I'll share the results.

----------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP 2100+ stock
Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe
1GB generic RAM
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 360/335
October 19, 2004 1:54:21 AM

Check over at Anand for a review of OCing the 90nanos. It looks like the 3000+s are the best deal, as all seem to OC fine to 2.6. Why waste money on a 3500, when a 3000 will get you to the same place?
October 19, 2004 2:08:48 AM

I bought mine before that article was published.

----------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP 2100+ stock
Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe
1GB generic RAM
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 360/335
October 19, 2004 3:52:28 AM

Is it the motherboard limiting to 2.6 ghz?
It seems weird that both chips would stop at the excact same speed, 2610. So it would either be the mobo or memory i guess.
If it is memory, they should have tried raising the multi to 10x or whatever and see how high they could crank it.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pjordan on 10/18/04 11:57 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 19, 2004 12:07:34 PM

Quote:
I don't like to jump on a band wagon right at the start only to find out about early teething problems.

I don't think that it's problematic to use a new technology at first (unless it'S Prescott! :smile: ).

In the high-tech digital world, there is no problem to get the first new stuff. Unless you want to let the fabrication process mature, to get better O/C potential, the new 90nm AMD CPU are 100% reliable to me. AMD can't push to the market CPU that are not 100% working! CPU's are not like cars... They can't be fixed after they are manufactured!

--
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>AMD Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green> <-- <i>Is this affecting my credibility???</i>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290
October 20, 2004 4:31:01 AM

No one replied about my previous post. Why did both cpus stop at the exact same 2610 Mhz? Memory or mobo maybe I am guessing?
October 20, 2004 9:29:35 AM

Quote:
Would the 3500+ have gone further with a little extra juice?

.. and how far would either one go with a substantial Vcore Bump + Water cooling? I'm hopefully going to be building such a system soon so it's of great interest to me.

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x11 (~2.2Ghz), 1.55 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro (VGA Silencer Rev3) @400/730
!