939fxes Clawhammer Or Sledgehammer?

[oralpain]

I have heard many peopel say that the socker 939 Athlon 64 FX chips are sledgehammer, not clawhammer. However, socket 939 FXes seem to have more in common with a clawhammer chip than a sledgehammer. The memory controler on a sledgehammer needs registered memory. The clawhammer just has half the bus width of the memory controler disabled.

 

Where are those of you that have said the 939 FXes are sledgehammers getting your information?

[Paranoid]

The Socket 940 FX chips are SledgeHammers, while the 939's are ClawHammers.

[Nerm]

I thought the entire FX line was sledgehammer, but it seems every place I look they are listing the 939 FX's as clawhammer.

[oralpain]

I'm pritty sure the the 939 FXes are clawhammers, the 940 FXes where just rebaged opterons.

 

These white papers from AMD seem to support this:

 

First page:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_ty..._docs/30431.pdf

 

It really looks like the 940 pin FXs and opterons are sledgehammers and the 939s are Clawhammers. They are on different packaging (eramic vs. organic) and the memory controler on the 940 CPUs can only handle registered memory.

 

Page 12 on both of these seem to clearly state that the 939 and 940 pin cpus have quite different memory controlers.

 

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_ty..._docs/31411.pdf

 

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_ty..._docs/31412.pdf

Edited October 9, 2004 by oralpain

[Nerm]

none of those links worked. Why doesn't AMD list the cores on their sites on the product specifications? they list everything else. They just don't list the cores.

[oralpain]

Becasue the names of the cores are just code names and aren't really used for anything.

 

amds old FAQ

 

I also fixed those links in my last post.

Edited October 9, 2004 by oralpain

[worker]

What is the best core for a cpu?

[Nerm]

What is the best core for a cpu?

I am assuming you mean for A64 chips sense this is in an A64 topic. It would depend on what you want to do. Clawhammer has double the L2 Cache which would make it better for redering, etc. and the Newcaslte has 200mhz more speed and the Newcastle seems to OC better. So, it really just comes down to what your wanting to do.

[ill_industries]

smashing an amd with a sledgehammer would definately get the job done faster than a clawhammer

[worker]

What they have hammerclaw for it does not run as well as newcastle?

[Nuclear]

Straight from AMD and on their forums:

 

Athlon 64 FX-53 Socket 939 Proc.

 

specs:

Core: ClawHammer

Operating Frequency: 2.4GHz

FSB: Integrated into Chip

Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1MB

Voltage: 1.5V

Process: 0.13Micron

Socket: Socket 939

Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+

Warranty: 3-year MFG

 

All S939 FX chips will be ClawHammers until the DC units hit. There are not and never has been a SledgeHammer core S939 FX chip. BigRed says they exist, but I've yet to see one, and AMD says they dont exist. Until I see a screenie or white paper proving otherwise....they will be all ClawHammers.

[oralpain]

Thats what I though.

 

As for newcastle vs. Clawhamer, clock for clock the clawhammer is superior to the newcastle because it has double the L2 cache. Overclockability isn't all that different between a CG clawhammer and a CG newcastle, but the speed difference isn't huge and the newcastles are cheaper for the same MHz.

Edited October 11, 2004 by oralpain