Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A64 3400+

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 22, 2004 12:35:29 AM

Hi guys,
While ordering a Athlon64 3400+ i've noticed there's two model...

One is clocked at 2.4ghz and has 512 L2 cache
and the other one is 2.2 Ghz and 1024 L2 cache...

What would you guys recommend between those two ?

Ps. both are socket 754

More about : a64 3400

October 22, 2004 1:32:29 AM

The 2.4ghz one will be faster in most cases. If your going to overclock you may as well get the 2.2ghz with the 1024kb l2 cache because both will overclock to similiar speeds.

-----------------------
oh, its a nice day. TO EAT CHILDREN!!!
October 22, 2004 9:32:12 AM

argh not again! - Look to the left, do you see that "Search Boards" button :lol: 

I'm not trying to be harsh, it's just that this question has been asked / debated / posted at least 10 times.

_______________________
<A HREF="http://www.moviewavs.com/MP3S/TV_Shows/Simpsons/flander..." target="_new">Audio Sig</A>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 22, 2004 9:32:27 PM

Actually, if people searched before posting then there'd be waaaaay less posts on these boards and nothing to talk about anymore.

Repeat questions is what drives all forums.
October 23, 2004 4:01:40 AM

I have the 2.2 1MB Cache but I have it overclocked to 2.6. The Cache size doesn't matter as much on 64s, so generally it's better to get the higher speed; I didn't do much research before buying either (don't get the same ram as me).

AMD 64 3400+
MSI K8N Neo Platinum
1 GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
6800 GT
WD Raptor 74GB
October 23, 2004 3:48:41 PM

Thanks for the replies...
I got the 2.2 1M now and it's running smooth a 2.4 on air... i'm probably gonna try to OC higher when i get my water cooling kit back

and Sorry about the repost, i had just joined the forums so i didn't notice the search function :) 

Thanks again.
October 23, 2004 4:13:03 PM

I have mine at 2.6 on air without any problems. I've never messed with water cooling, thought about it, but every time I do I say to myself "why am I putting water inside my computer." Just doesn't seem smart to me, GL though, talk to scottchen.

AMD 64 3400+
MSI K8N Neo Platinum
1 GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
6800 GT
WD Raptor 74GB<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by BeyRevRa on 10/23/04 12:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 23, 2004 4:16:41 PM

If you can get to 2.6Ghz on air, don't bother getting water, that's pretty much as high as the chip will ever go.
October 23, 2004 6:07:48 PM

What about a 3500+ 90nm? How high do you think it could be pushed? They are suppose to be way better overclockers according to Anandtech.

AMD 64 3400+
MSI K8N Neo Platinum
1 GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
6800 GT
WD Raptor 74GB
October 24, 2004 3:06:15 PM

i got a 2.4ghz newcastle 512kb and believe me, cache doesnt really matter on AMD systems because of Hypertransport(on-die memory controller). I got some pretty amazing scores with my newcastles.

3dmark2001se: 24,273
3dmark03: 12,731

------
A64 3400+ Newcastle
1GB PC 4000 Kingston HyperX
Asus K8V basic Bios 1004
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
73,225 Aquamarks
October 24, 2004 10:18:10 PM

The Claws with 1mb cache gains significantly more performance when overclocked. Don't ask me why, it just does.
October 25, 2004 12:44:39 AM

clock for clock the Clawhammer 1mb is faster than Newcastle 512kb, however the Newcastle is faster than the clawhammer at stock. 200mhz increase clockspeed is better than 1mb cache.



------
A64 3400+ Newcastle
1GB PC 4000 Kingston HyperX
Asus K8V basic Bios 1004
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
73,225 Aquamarks
October 25, 2004 3:01:30 AM

And the Claws does clock for clock with newcastles, if not better. You'd think that the smaller die size on the newcastles would generate less heat and have chance to go higher, but read somewhere that newcastles are just defective clawhammers.
!