Jump to content

New Castle Vs. Hammer


Recommended Posts

you're also forgetting the fact the 939's have a dual channel ram controller vs the 754s that only had a single channel one, thus allowing newcastle to hit burst ramspeeds much higher than clawhammer

*EDIT*

now that I reread the original post..the ram controller doesn't have much to do with teh core :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have been debating between the two and I think it comes down to which oc's better. If they are two different cores then one has to have some sort of advantage right? Can someone who has experience with these processors shed some light on the matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock for stock, the clawhammer core with 1mb cache will whup a NewCastle. The NewCastle chips OC higher, but need about a 150-200MHz jump on a 1mb ClawHammer.

 

If you can find one, go for a ClawHammer with a 1mb cache. The CG stepping is awesome, and OCs quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah the clawhammer wins hands down most oem 3200+ 1meg clawhammers from newegg are cg cores and overclock as good as the newcastles. if you can still get them

 

clawhammer 3200+ 1meg l2 2.0ghz

newcastle 3200+ 512k l2 2.2ghz

 

overclocking a 3200+ clawhammer to 2400+ mhz gives you performance inbetween a 3700+ and 3800+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for the 939 FX's.

we've covered this 100 times now. the FX is neither newcastle nor clawhammer. it's a sledgehammer core.... same as it was as a socket 940 chip, same as the opteron, same as it will stay for the next few months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...