New 3200+ Half The Cache, 11x multi

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peen
from newegg you can get a A64 3200 1mb for like 270?
and 3.0C retail for 220..

if you overclock both to the max same cooling i think 3.0C is faster anyways..

on air the newer 3.0c's seem to do atleast 3.6ghz to 3.9ghz top maybe more

think the max ive seen a A64 3200 on air is what 2500mhz?

so compare 3.9ghz to 2.5ghz a64 wouldnt the p4 be faster for a little less?

off topic i know but want a A64, maybe

---

You got numbers mixed up mate ;)

A64 3200+ vs P4 3.0C and you wonder why price is so different? Try A64 3200+ vs P4 3.2C ($280 USD: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...116-164&depa=0)

The difference is +/- $10

`s

LOL Try comparing CPUs of the same PR rating...

Price:Performance the AXP still pwns. I wanna see clock for clock side by side comparisons of clawhammer and newcastle.

im not going by 3.2c because i cant afford 270-280 $$$

it seems to be that 3.0c's and 3.2c's overclock the same so why get a 3.2C?

i want A64, but i want something with 1mb cache and 270 is too much, but im just wondering

3.9ghz P4C vs 2.5ghz A64 whats faster?

depends on the htt/fsb speed.. but I would say the a64 :)

wonder what a 2.8C at 270x14 (3.64ghz) 5:4 2,2,2,5 would compare too:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peen
im not going by 3.2c because i cant afford 270-280 $$$

it seems to be that 3.0c's and 3.2c's overclock the same so why get a 3.2C?

i want A64, but i want something with 1mb cache and 270 is too much, but im just wondering

3.9ghz P4C vs 2.5ghz A64 whats faster?

---

It would depend on what you want to do with it and what benchmark you want to run. Spi for the rig in my sig is 35s, so proably about even, 2001se you'd probably lose a few hundred, 3d03 the Intel would win.

Back to the topic, when you compare these two cpus it might be best to try and stay with similar HT even if you have to drop the newcastle down to a 10 multi

Ok after reading this thread I'm starting to get worried. I set my sights on getting an A64 4000 when they came out. Will it have 512k cache? or will it have 1mb (hopefully:D ) I'm sure it will run at 2.6ghz.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JWB
Ok after reading this thread I'm starting to get worried. I set my sights on getting an A64 4000 when they came out. Will it have 512k cache? or will it have 1mb (hopefully:D ) I'm sure it will run at 2.6ghz.

---

Gets out the whipping stick for the OT :stick:

`s

Newcastles having 512Kb L2 instead of 1Mb?

My 3400+ newcastle has 1Mb L2 cache.

example:

ADA3200AEP 5AP

AP = Rev C0
AR = Rev CG
AX = Rev CG

This one is mine:

http://users.skynet.be/lodewj/cpu.gif


Iprovements are:

improved cool n quit:

Minimal power state:
old stepping: 800Mhz, 1.3V, 35W
new stepping: 1Ghz, 1.1V, 22W

The memory controller is a bit improved, resulting in somewhat better resutls with weak timings. (like C3).

Newcastle core hasn't got anything to do whith cache size for as far as I know.

:stick: :slap:

:banana4:

Perhaps you are speaking of CG revision? Dunno. You don't have newcastle though if you have 1mb cache.

Sorry I do not know what you guys are talking about but it seem the a64 4000 WILL only have 512kb cache when it comes out.

Socket 754
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.4GHz 1MB (June 2004)

Socket 939 (Athlon 64)
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz 512KB (June 2004)
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz 512KB (June 2004)
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ 2.6GHz 512KB (H2 2004)
AMD Athlon 64 4200+ 2.8GHz 512KB (Q1 2005)

Socket 939 (Athlon 64 FX)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 2.4GHz 1MB (June 2004)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6GHz 1MB (H2 2004)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 2.8GHz 1MB (Q1 2005)
AMD Athlon 64 FX Toledo Dual Core 2MB (H2 2005)

Yep, it will only have 512kb cache, as it'll be a Newcastle core chip on socket 939. The FXes will be the only chips on 939 to have 1mb cache. If AMD released a 4000+ on socket 754, though, it would have 1mb L2 cache.

Thanks Shade00 :D So all 754 pin cpus are 1mb cache wheras 939pin ATHLON 64's have 512kb but have dual channel. I hope the duel channel makes the difference and 939 can go high fsb unlike the current 940pin boards. Saying that they were designed mostly for opterons and server work.

Not all socket 754 chips have 1mb cache. Some are 512kb models. However, they're all called A64s, and they just have different model numbers. The Athlon 64s that will be available on 939 will all have 512k cache. The Athlon 64 FX on socket 939 will have 1mb cache.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by `schr0et
More than likely yeah, the prices for the current A64s are no different than the P4 prices.

In the past AMD had the Price/Performance crown, now its just the performance crown.

So why should anyone buy an AMD 64 processor when its price is no different from that of a Pentium 4?

---

errrm you said it yourself, they cost the same but the a64 is faster? :P

newcastle= always 512kb L2 cache, always! some are 1mb chips with half the cache disabled and some are actual newcastle cores with 512 kb L2 cache.

exactly like some P4s that were actually P4EEs but with the L3 cache disabled.

and geforce, those are shots of a real working 90nm newcastle. while the mass production will start in Q3 there have been samples for months already, even 90nm dual core a64s :D but only clocked at really low speeds afaik...

the REALLY nice thing about the a64 is that the dual core a64s can work in 754 939 and 940 boards!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peen
wonder what a 2.8C at 270x14 (3.64ghz) 5:4 2,2,2,5 would compare too:confused:

---

A stock A64 3000+ ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yuri
A stock A64 3000+ ;)

---

Hardly and a 2.8 at 270 is 3.78G. With a 2.8 at 3.7G spi is 36s, 24.7K in 2001se, and would beat at A64 at 2.5-2.6 in 3d03.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by saaya
errrm you said it yourself, they cost the same but the a64 is faster? :P

newcastle= always 512kb L2 cache, always! some are 1mb chips with half the cache disabled and some are actual newcastle cores with 512 kb L2 cache.

exactly like some P4s that were actually P4EEs but with the L3 cache disabled.

and geforce, those are shots of a real working 90nm newcastle. while the mass production will start in Q3 there have been samples for months already, even 90nm dual core a64s :D but only clocked at really low speeds afaik...

the REALLY nice thing about the a64 is that the dual core a64s can work in 754 939 and 940 boards!

---

Let me clear up my statement :D

While I know I said the A64 is still faster, the P4 still has the name premium. The intel name carries its own pricetag, thus the reason why so many people still buy Intels is because its name is so widely known.

`s

So 512K L2 = almost 1K 3DM01

I mean there's gotta be something else that extra 512K L2 is used for...

Anyone know?

`s

Quote:

---

Originally posted by `schr0et
Wow... good testing man! That honestly surprised me... I would have figured the CH would've been a lot faster than the NC shows what I know:D

So what do you think now though? You going to keep the CH or the NC?

`s

---

Still going to definately go with the Extra Cache, was pretty annoyed at FRY's, drove 40 miles to pick this Proc up and all they had were two open box (returned) procs. I absolutely hate buying returned stuff, especially like procs.. Going to put this under the Mach1 and if it doesn't do an exceptional job it is going back, and I'll grab a new 3400+, I have 2 weeks to get the extra cash.. But it sucks because the new vid cards will probably be on the shelves then...:mad:

Bottom line I guess, the newcastle clocked quite a bit better, and performance isn't far off, but since the newcastle actually is going to sell for $20 extra dollars (at FRY'S anyway) I'll pass on it....

run then both at 2ghz, like the 3200 512k cache at 10x multi and the 3200 1mb cache at 10x.

you have the 3200 1mb cache at 220HTT that probly helps the score out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peen
run then both at 2ghz, like the 3200 512k cache at 10x multi and the 3200 1mb cache at 10x.

you have the 3200 1mb cache at 220HTT that probly helps the score out.

---

As I said, this was best I could do, ran out of time, Newcastle is already returned and waiting for its new owner....

i splitted the benches off to this thread
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...threadid=35181
and made it a sticky. thankx a LOT karnivore!!! :toast: great numbers!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by saaya
i splitted the benches off to this thread
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...threadid=35181
and made it a sticky. thankx a LOT karnivore!!! :toast: great numbers!

---

LOL, thanks, will make it a bit easier to see, I thought the forum messed up, my posts all the sudden were gone, and you hadn't replied yet, heheh

yeah sorry, i got a pm right after i split the thread :D

great numbers! if you write a few sentences we could even post it on the front page. lemme know if you want to :)

i never thougt the missing cache would have such a big impact! this is really interesting! so its the best to get the 1mb chips before they all get replaced by the 512kb ones...