Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
March 28, 2005, 2:07 am
rate this thread
Okay, I'm getting around to building a new system as my current one
(though it served me well for 5 years) has become hopelessly dated.
I'm considering building an Athlon 64 based system, with the 939 socket
as it looks to be the one with a future, going ahead and going PCI-E,
and probably an Nforce4 ultra chipset as I had good luck with the
Nforce2 chipset machines I built for others & very bad experiences with
Via chipsets outside of the 600 series.
I hope my luck with Nforce chipsets continues, but if there is any real
negative to the Nforce4 I don't know about let me know, eh? Although
the DDR sockets are a bit close together for my liking, I'm probably
going to go with the MSI K8N-NEO4. I don't think the memory spacing
will be much of an issue as I'll probably only put 2 512MB sticks in it.
I can't see myself needing more than 1GB any time soon.
Now the confusion. I'm looking at processors to put in it. There are
some obvious differences in the cores and performance in the 754
versions of the Athlon 64, but they have become much less obvious in the
socket 939 versions, and I'm having a great deal of difficulty finding
What exactly is the difference between the:
Athlon 64 3500+ Socket 939 64x64KB L1 512KB L2 Newcastle Core
Athlon 64 3500+ Socket 939 64x64KB L1 512KB L2 Winchester Core
Athlon 64 3500+ Socket 939 64x64KB L1 512KB L2 Clawhammer Core
They all have the same .13 process, same cache, I assume they all have
dual channel memory controllers as this was supposed to be a feature of
the 939 socket. The only difference I see is the lower voltage of the
Winchester (which I'm told is a slightly better overclocker than the
Shopping around a bit I can get the Newcastle & Clawhammer for the same
price (ZipZoomFly has the Newcastle with heatsink for the same price as
Newegg has the Clawhammer). The Winchester is always a bit higher, so I
assume it has to have some advantage over these two? If I have to pick
between the Clawhammer & Newcastle for budget reasons, what is my best
bet for performance?
Going to AMD for information proved fruitless for me. Anyone know of
any benchmarks comparing them or a chart of the differences between them?
Re: Socket 939 Athlon 64 3500+, Newcastle, Clawhammer, Winchester...Which core & why?
It is not clear just where you get your mis-information.
0.13 um minimum feature size
AMD rated 4000+
Clocked at 2.4GHz
1MB L2 cache.
AMD rated 3800+ or 3500+
Clocked 2.2GHz or 2.4 GHz
AMD rated 3500+,3200+,3000+
Clocked at 1.8GHz to 2.2GHz
512KB L2 cache.
Re: Socket 939 Athlon 64 3500+, Newcastle, Clawhammer, Winchester...Whichcore & why?
I never mentioned the sledgehammer, I mentioned the Socket 939
Clawhammer Athlon 64 3500+, which indeed does have a 512KB L2 and is on
the .13 process.
The only error is that the Winchester does indeed use the 90nm process.
But the question still stands.
- » Any recommendations for a 200 GB SATA hard drive with 16 MB cache?
- — Previous thread in » Home-built Computers