[tom7723]

I had a Athlon 64 3200+ and i never benchmarked the stock speed. Just the other day, i got that it's performance was comparable to Athlon 64 3000+ even though it was running at 2.0Ghz (1MB L2 cache). So i called Mwave and argued for a replacement. So now that my processor is being shipped there, i'm stuck with a Celeron 900Mhz. Man do i suck at like....

 

[xms]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom7723 I had a Athlon 64 3200+ and i never benchmarked the stock speed. Just the other day, i got that it's performance was comparable to Athlon 64 3000+ even though it was running at 2.0Ghz (1MB L2 cache). So i called Mwave and argued for a replacement. So now that my processor is being shipped there, i'm stuck with a Celeron 900Mhz. Man do i suck at like....

Thats most strange, what did you use to benchmark its performance?

 

[tom7723]

SiSoftware Sandra 2005

 

[slow'puter]

If I understand this correctly, your 3200 is running at 3000 speed.

AFAIK, the 3200 Clawhammer (1Mb cache) is 2.0 Ghz, where the 3200 Newcastle (512 kb cache) runs at 2.2 Ghz. The difference in cache size makes the Clawhammer a tad faster at a lower clock speed.

This is how it was explained to me, I have not researched it, so I am sure someone will chime in and correct me if I am wrong.

 

[YiffyGriffy]

a 3200 ClawHammer runs 2GHz, a NewCastle runs 2.2GHz. The extra cache on the ClawHammer gives it an overall performance increase that equates to an extra 200MHz, but it will do no good in an arithmetic test, like Sandra, so it'll score lower than a 3200 with a higher clock (NewCastle).