Just picked this up tonight, not sure what to think about this, looked and couldn't find anything else about this proc....
Still looking for the max OC, this is on Boxed cooling for now..
Update when i hit the top on air...
Printable View
Just picked this up tonight, not sure what to think about this, looked and couldn't find anything else about this proc....
Still looking for the max OC, this is on Boxed cooling for now..
Update when i hit the top on air...
wow first time i've seen that stepping. goodluck oc'in it.
2388 @ 1.55v is great for air.
Not exactly thrilled about the 512 cache:mad:
2450 @ default voltage on air...
where did you happen to pick that one up at Karnivore?
looks like you either got a defective 3400+ or an overclocked 3000+ I did hear of the newcastles too but I think they are for s939 only
interesting indeed i have a newcastle AMD64 3000+ doesn't do much over 2266-2300mhz at 1.68v vcore on air
Picked it up from fry's, they actually tried charging me 20 bucks over the old 3200+ price for this thing.. He was well aware that this was a newcastle core, so obviously this is what we are heading for in the Socket 754, they still had the old price posted on the wall so i got the old price...
Seems like an OK clocker, but its going back after I try it under the Prom, if I wanted 512 cache I would buy a 3000+:stick:
I guess I'll probably return it and cough up the additional $$$ for a 3400+ Guess I better before AMD decides all the 754's should be 512:down:
Here is a screenie of the proc @ max volts my K8NPro (not modded) can give it..
Wow... I never would've guessed the extra 512K cache would impact it that much ?!
I'm running 2640, 240x11 @ 1.7V 5:4 on A64 3400+ CAAOC 408 C0 w/ Mach II GT
ZNF3-250GB PRO VCore mod (1.55 in bios = 1.68 real time) I got 35s 1M with a 5:4 ratio with memory at 188 FSB.
I'm really surprised at your 1M being so high with those clocks tho...
I recall early when A64s came that people were all talking about how 512K less cache had little performance difference :?
`s
a guy in germany had a 3400+ newcastle core... it was awesome did 2950 mhz on a vapo ls cache but multi of 12x
"I recall early when A64s came that people were all talking about how 512K less cache had little performance difference"
I guess they were wrong. some dude tried a 3000+ and got 19.2k stock on 9800p while the 3200+ got him 19.9k! if he had win 2k he would have been a few 100 marks higher for both. seems like the extra cache is worth 150-200MHz more and only scales better as the cpu and gpu clocks increase. still 512k cache at 2.5GHz isnt that bad, dont you think its worth keeping an overclocking gem?
I don't think its worth it, because if you look at the scores the lack of 1MB cache is making a sound difference, so the added clocks seem to be negated by lack of a full 1MB L2 Cache.Quote:
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
"I recall early when A64s came that people were all talking about how 512K less cache had little performance difference"
I guess they were wrong. some dude tried a 3000+ and got 19.2k stock on 9800p while the 3200+ got him 19.9k! if he had win 2k he would have been a few 100 marks higher for both. seems like the extra cache is worth 150-200MHz more and only scales better as the cpu and gpu clocks increase. still 512k cache at 2.5GHz isnt that bad, dont you think its worth keeping an overclocking gem?
What good is a 2.5 Ghz 512K processor when its only as fast as a 2.3 Ghz w/ 1MB L2?
Seems like the NC's are more like "upgraded" Barton's then they are real A64's.
`s
would he be able to get at least 2.3GHz if he resold the newcastle 3200+ and bought a real 3200+ with a meg of cache? also while theres a big difference in 3dmark, some people say in games the differences is more like 50MHz
can i point out something?
how are you achieving a multi of 11 on a 3200+?
Newcastles are CG revision, and have 512K L2 instead of 1MB, so AMD bumps up the clock by 200Mhz. So the older clawhammer CO revision 3200+ is 1MB L2. 2Ghz, the CG 3200+ is 512K L2, 2.2GhzQuote:
Originally posted by Alex08
can i point out something?
how are you achieving a multi of 11 on a 3200+?
I would like to see some STOCK benchmarks of a 2.2Ghz newcastles vs 2Ghz clawhammer, would be very interesting to see, anyone got links?
Quote:
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
would he be able to get at least 2.3GHz if he resold the newcastle 3200+ and bought a real 3200+ with a meg of cache? also while theres a big difference in 3dmark, some people say in games the differences is more like 50MHz
First thanks Schr0et, you saved me some typing, my opinion exactly...
GF4, the last 3000+ I had did 2350 with the same cooling, and in 3DM, comes pretty close to this 3200+, bottomline, the 150mhz is NOT worth 100 bux...
2.3 from a 3200 plus is nothing special, 3DMark and gaming isn't my only reason to get the A64, Hell my P4 kills the A64 by a good margin... The loss of half the cache will make a difference for me..
Alex08, if you look closely at my initial post, and the contained screenshot, you'll notice this is AMD's better idea, this IS the next gen of the 3200+, AMD castrated it by wacking off half the cache, and upped the default multiplier to 11....
I could probably pick through a few 3000+ procs and get nearly the same results, plus the added benefit of additional mem speed...
http://members.iinet.net.au/~zzhang/A64-2933.jpg
Since everyone is pimping their chip
I might as well pimp mine
On a stock Mach II this chip, max benching speed is 2860
am I right in saying the newcastle dies are smaller and start with half the cache from the get go, no disabling bad cache like on the 3000+ cause the newcastles were made with 512k in mind, theres none to disable? this means smaller die, less heat and higher overclocks. cheaper for amd to make and the savings will soon be passed to us customers. imagine a newcastle 3200+ at $200 that does like 2.6GHz quite easy
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarok
http://members.iinet.net.au/~zzhang/A64-2933.jpg
Since everyone is pimping their chip
I might as well pimp mine
On a stock Mach II this chip, max benching speed is 2860
uhhh, ok, no one pimping A64's though, having a discussion about the Castrated A64's... Not quite sure how a castrated, Air cooled 3200+ is relative to a Mach2 cooled 3400+ :confused:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
am I right in saying the newcastle dies are smaller and start with half the cache from the get go, no disabling bad cache like on the 3000+ cause the newcastles were made with 512k in mind, theres none to disable? this means smaller die, less heat and higher overclocks. cheaper for amd to make and the savings will soon be passed to us customers. imagine a newcastle 3200+ at $200 that does like 2.6GHz quite easy
Maybe in the future, but right now, I'd bet they want a place to go with the failed chips and as for heat output this thing runs very near same temps as my friends 3400+ around the same speed... Gonna be a while before you see a 3200+ at that price..
I also wouldn't quite expect 2.6 as a normal, quite easy occurence. From what I've seen this is somewhere above average doing 2.5 @1.7 volts..
Not a gem as you descibed, but not a dud either.
i dont like the looks of this newcastle that super pi time is real slow on my reg 3200+ i can get 41 s @2.2ghz
yep I can do 38 seconds with my axp-m @ 2550mhz and 36 seconds @ 2875mhz.
Don't put to much weight in the benchy times, they were just a quick shot at stability, If I put some decent memory in it, tightened up the timing, and a few other minor tweaks those numbers would drop considerably...
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: sorry wrong pic, supposed to be one with the super pi/pifast results... but cant find it now
blah i will just go run it again ..
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarok
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: sorry wrong pic, supposed to be one with the super pi/pifast results... but cant find it now
blah i will just go run it again ..
Please thats quite all right the thread will do fine without it, If you have a Newcastle, or even a 3200+ 1mb cache that would be a little more suited to this thread than bragging about something that isn't all that impressive...
then how is schroet's 3400 relevant to this thread either...
just comparing different results and u had to take it personally..
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarok
then how is schroet's 3400 relevant to this thread either...
just comparing different results and u had to take it personally..
Well Schr0et's at least has some comparative value rather than a windows screenie to show off an OC... You even admit thats all it is, to show off yer proc:rolleyes:
its not the cache, the cache is like 1 sec difference max. i got 36s superpi with my 3000+ CG @ 2400 running @ 240 FSB 2-2-2-5/6
the 3200+ is 2 sec faster in superpi than the 3000+ thanks to the bigger cache.
in case you pick up a 1mb chip please make some benches of this chip first and do the same benches with the 1mb chiip and post the results, would be really interesting to see them compared directly (not on some major hardwaresite ;))
newcastle cpus are mostly diferent cpu dies, some might be hammers with disabled cache , but most of them are diferent dies:
IMO these "new" NC's are more like something aimed at the mainstream OEMs than overclockers.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that AMD may be trying to pull a Prescott.
I think I'm pretty much on par when I say just about Any A64 3200+ w/ 1MB L2 is guaranteed to do 2.3 Ghz on stock air, and will do 2.4+ with a little improvement in cooling.
In the coming days I hope to be doing the VDimm mod, so I can hopefully run some comparative benchmarks against the 3200+ 512K.
I invite anyone that thinks they're interested in comparing these two processor types, to do the same :toast:
Cheers mate, Karnivore thanks for taking the time to test this chip mate :up:
`s
what I like to see are 3dmark scores and benchmarks by some games comparing the differences with 512k and 1mb cache. also wow the 90nm die is so small! its not even in exisance so is that an estimate to its size
AMD is being smart. They're using A64s that don't have the full 1MB cache working and re-label them 512K cache Newcastles. I think you heard promises of increased performance from Socket 939 Newcastles that take advantage of dual-channel.Quote:
Originally posted by `schr0et
IMO these "new" NC's are more like something aimed at the mainstream OEMs than overclockers.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that AMD may be trying to pull a Prescott.
I think I'm pretty much on par when I say just about Any A64 3200+ w/ 1MB L2 is guaranteed to do 2.3 Ghz on stock air, and will do 2.4+ with a little improvement in cooling.
In the coming days I hope to be doing the VDimm mod, so I can hopefully run some comparative benchmarks against the 3200+ 512K.
I invite anyone that thinks they're interested in comparing these two processor types, to do the same :toast:
Cheers mate, Karnivore thanks for taking the time to test this chip mate :up:
`s
Saaya, I'll do that, I'm going to call the other local fry's and hope they have the 1mb in stock yet..Quote:
Originally posted by saaya
in case you pick up a 1mb chip please make some benches of this chip first and do the same benches with the 1mb chiip and post the results, would be really interesting to see them compared directly (not on some major hardwaresite ;))
newcastle cpus are mostly diferent cpu dies, some might be hammers with disabled cache , but most of them are diferent dies:
Thanks alot Ragnarok, you've made such a wonderfull contribution to this thread
:moon:
Grow up. That comment was uncalled for.Quote:
Thanks alot Ragnarok, you've made such a wonderfull contribution to this thread
Maybe he didnt make a contribution to this thread. Maybe he was trying to show off his NICE overclock------ Who the hell cares.
BTW: Ragnarok, nice overclock
Oh sorry, I didnt contribute anything to this thread either.:D :D :D
maybe they're recycling the AMD64 3000+ Newcastles for 3200+ 1/2 cache rating ?Quote:
Originally posted by HKPolice
Newcastles are CG revision, and have 512K L2 instead of 1MB, so AMD bumps up the clock by 200Mhz. So the older clawhammer CO revision 3200+ is 1MB L2. 2Ghz, the CG 3200+ is 512K L2, 2.2Ghz
http://fileshosts.com/AMD/boards/Shu...5_2hr49min.jpg
More than likely yeah, the prices for the current A64s are no different than the P4 prices.Quote:
Originally posted by eva2000
maybe they're recycling the AMD64 3000+ Newcastles for 3200+ 1/2 cache rating ?
http://fileshosts.com/AMD/boards/Shu...5_2hr49min.jpg
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?
Guess if the prices are lowered since it has half the cache, it will attract new users.
Won't attract me tho!
Tritium its not wise to jump on this thread just to crap it. I noticed his comments, and while his comments were valid that I made a similiar post I had no interest on making matters worst.
In fact I'll remove the picture all together from that post so the thread goes back on topic.
Lets focus on the task at hand instead of turning this once informative thread into rubble.
`s
Quote:
Originally posted by tritium
Grow up. That comment was uncalled for.
Maybe he didnt make a contribution to this thread. Maybe he was trying to show off his NICE overclock------ Who the hell cares.
BTW: Ragnarok, nice overclock
Oh sorry, I didnt contribute anything to this thread either.:D :D :D
LOL, another fine thread crap, don't like my comment STF out of MY thread....
Well looks like I'll be able to do some head to head on this, The other local FRY's has 2 3200+ non-castrated variety..
Any requests or thoughts on what to run as far as benchies go, I'll be running out there tomorrow.
And as a bonus they still have 10 sticks of KHX3000 in stock @ 55 a stick:)
Karn,
lets compare some SuperPi 1M/8M and Pifast.
I would say run some 3Dmark benches but too many people have different cards, so its hard to replicate.
Cheers mate, hope you get a nice chippy :D
`s
Karn you got a 4.4ghz P4 dont ya? does it f33l faster? :D
Quote:
Originally posted by `schr0et
Karn,
lets compare some SuperPi 1M/8M and Pifast.
I would say run some 3Dmark benches but too many people have different cards, so its hard to replicate.
Cheers mate, hope you get a nice chippy :D
`s
Sounds good, I'll do some 3D as well, I'll just try to do it with as little change as possible other then the Proc...
Quote:
Originally posted by Peen
Karn you got a 4.4ghz P4 dont ya? does it f33l faster?
Yeah, my 3.0 does 4.5 stable, and kicks the snot out of THIS A64 @ 2.5, going to try and get this under the prom tonight and see where it goes..
That includes Desktop, menues, browsers, games, etc...
its not doing to bad though, right now its within 1500 3D01 of my P4 @4.4
Your local Fry's has possible BH-5?Quote:
Originally posted by Karnivore
And as a bonus they still have 10 sticks of KHX3000 in stock @ 55 a stick:)
NOOOOO! Stupid local Fry's here only has over-priced Mushkin Special 2-2-2- and some CH-5.
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveX
Your local Fry's has possible BH-5?
NOOOOO! Stupid local Fry's here only has over-priced Mushkin Special 2-2-2- and some CH-5.
Yep, was a bit surprised myself, they also showed 4 sticks of Corsair 3500, 2x512, and 2x256, but when he checked they were sold today:stick: $60 a stick for PC3500x256, someone got a bargain:mad:
I'll know tomorrow when i trade in this 3200+, but 55 a stick is pretty decent..
:slapass:Quote:
Originally posted by Karnivore
$60 a stick for PC3500x256, someone got a bargain:mad:
Gawd, I have such bad luck.
isnt mushkin special 2-2-2 still good stuff? would it even be worth to get some, what fsb can I expect at 3.25v?
Quote:
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
isnt mushkin special 2-2-2 still good stuff? would it even be worth to get some, what fsb can I expect at 3.25v?
mushkin 222 is decent stuff, but your not going to get it for 55 a stick, if you want to know how winbond stuff Clocks, just visit one of the countless threads specifically dedicated to it..
I can see a good reason in that...Quote:
Originally posted by `schr0et
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?
Why am I not suprised :DQuote:
Won't attract me tho!
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
Here is what i tested with the 3400+ CG, default 2400 Mhz :
Look at the FSB on a KT800 Mobo without AGP lock ;)
You got numbers mixed up mate ;)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
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:
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.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?
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.
Gets out the whipping stick for the OT :stick: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.
`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.
errrm you said it yourself, they cost the same but the a64 is faster? :PQuote:
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?
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!
A stock A64 3000+ ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Peen
wonder what a 2.8C at 270x14 (3.64ghz) 5:4 2,2,2,5 would compare too:confused:
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 yuri
A stock A64 3000+ ;)
Let me clear up my statement :DQuote:
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!
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
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: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
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...
nvm i looked at it all wrong. stupid me like always!!! *jumps out window*Quote:
Originally posted by Karnivore
As I said, this was best I could do, ran out of time, Newcastle is already returned and waiting for its new owner....
Quote:
Originally posted by saaya
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...
YGPM
got one right here ... what do you want tested ... bearing in mind my r9800 pro is bust and im using a gf4 mx440 :p .... is does have agp 8x tho \o/ :DQuote:
Originally posted by pkrew
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.
I'm not sure what you mean that you have and really don't need anything tested. Like I said in the sticky great job on the comparison Karn
hehe np Peen:toast:
Quote:
Originally posted by pkrew
I'm not sure what you mean that you have and really don't need anything tested. Like I said in the sticky great job on the comparison Karn
thanks pkrew, wish I had more time to get a bit more indepth, and even a bit more variety of tests, but at least its something, and maybe it will get someone else mortivated to do some...
yw, Karn, I'm sure some people will do more testing as more get this cpu, but what you did was enough to convince me which is the better way to go.:toast:
PS: I wonder what implications this may have for 939. Makes me wonder if AMD is doing this to increase FX sales
Blah, this Clawhammer is quite the DUD:mad: LOL, max under the Prom is less than the OEM cooled Newcastle, 2.5 stable is best it will do:stick:
The Hunt continues:rolleyes:
Mine is a CG rev. I will post a CPU-Z screenshot when I come home. I will also post my default benches.Quote:
Originally posted by texuspete2k2
:stick: :slap:
:banana4:
Perhaps you are speaking of CG revision? Dunno. You don't have newcastle though if you have 1mb cache.
I tought the CG rev's where newcastle's.
I do know for 100% that the CG has the Improved QnC and memcontroller, as it's stated in the AMD whitespecs.
Link
cg is an a64 with improved mem controller, there are newcastle and clawhammer versions with the improved memory controller.
so now we have:
3200+ CW (2ghz 1mb)
3200+ CW CG (2ghz 1mb)
3200+ NC CG (2.2ghz 1/2mb)
the CW CG cores seem to be the best it seems, at least at the moment. if the newe NC CG cores oc 100mhz higher they will catch up and outperform the CW CG chips everywhere it seems.
in my country they still got loads of 2-2-2 chips, such as the khx3000 and a few sotres got khx3200 non-A... does this mean these are BH-5 or just other chips?Quote:
Originally posted by DaveX
Your local Fry's has possible BH-5?
NOOOOO! Stupid local Fry's here only has over-priced Mushkin Special 2-2-2- and some CH-5.
nice i just planned to buy 3400+ 512k cache with 12 mult this news tell me that they will be here shortly
Check out this list...hope I don't get banned for the link :(Quote:
Originally posted by biohead
in my country they still got loads of 2-2-2 chips, such as the khx3000 and a few sotres got khx3200 non-A... does this mean these are BH-5 or just other chips?
http://www.xtremeresources.com/forum...625#post399625
all BH-5/6 chips aren't in production anymore :( I think you'll have to be really really lucky to get a BH-5/6 chip... f*f*s why did they stop producing it? :'(