mctriple

does the clawhammer's 1mb L2 make it better than the winchester's .90nm process?

i was going to get the clawhammer for the L2, but a friend said that the increased L2 doesn't really matter for A64s, and that the winchester core would be better to overclock.

Crashed

Are we talkin s754 or s939?

FragTek

It all basically boils down to personal preference and how big of a hole you want in your pocket IMO...

The Clawhammer is nice because it has the unlocked multi's and the 1mb L2, nice features, but hardly noticable, and verrrry expensive.

The Winchester core takes less juice to operate, has a locked multiplier, but overclocks fantastically without needing to adjust the multi, I'm at 810mhz over on mine right now and with proper cooling could be sitting at 900mhz over.

FX-53 = $725 / FX-55 = $1000

or...

3000+ OC'd to FX-55 Speed = $150

Un-noticable speed difference, you do the math

YiffyGriffy

I think he was talking about Socket 754 ClawHammers since FX chips utilize SledgeHammer cores. 1MB of L2 cache is a valuable asset, worth about an extra 200MHz in clock speed in AMD's eyes. An individual wouldn't notice the performance difference in games though.

__________________
Went almost two years without any major system overhauls, so I'm treating myself

Crashed

As far as s754 goes I would say clawhammer as it is a mobile cpu, and has unlocked multis, but then it is all personal preference and how much money want to spend. As far as s939 I would say a 3500

FragTek

Well I've never heard of a s754 Winchester cpu either so..... moot point.