Kristopher #18, I presume your correction applies to my post #11 where I quote from your April 16th article. If this is the case then it still doesnt make sense as the 2800+ is only a CG stepping and therefore already IS a Newcastle so doesnt have to "transition". Also you quote:
"In a nutshell, Clawhammer cores will all be replaced by Newcastle cores (130nm SOI, 512KB L2 cache). "
Well as the white paper declares CG cpus can be 1MB L2 (coded AR) or 512K (AR and AX). So if your above statement is right it CANT just be the CG review, it must be the AX variant of the CG review. The CG definition is not the stepping. There are three steppings in the CG family. SH7-CG corresponding to AR on the cpu designation, DH7-CG to AX and CH7-CG Christ knows?. see P6 of:
All steppings have sckt 754 and 939 derivatives which in my book could be classed as steppings in their own right making 6 CG steppings (and CPUID command will return a different stepping No. for each sckt type). In the sckt 754 case, the SH7 stepping (AR) has a CPUID stepping identification return of F4Ah while DH7 (AX) has FC0h (and CH7 has F82h). This corresponds with your model 4 for Clawhammer and C for Newcastle but that doesnt take into account the model "F" ie the Sckt939 DH7-CG stepping (FF0h) soon to be released. My interpretation is that Newcastle is not just any 512K L2 A64 but the one where the L2 hasnt originated from a 1Mb L2 being crippled. So die size will determine true Newcastles (and further down the track Paris cores).
Looks like this article was started a while back. "Unreal Tournament 2004 is coming down the line very shortly"!? Or maybe they just mean that the release version of UT2K4 has really shitty benchmarking in comparison to UT2K3? Probably. Still, the fact that there was *NO* overclocking information indicates that this is either old stuff just getting finished, and AT didn't want to redo the tests using one of the new 754 mobos that have a working PCI/AGP lock, or else they just pushed it out early.
Something else to think about, the 1.8 GHz 2800+ compared to the 2.0 GHz 3000+ is a case of bad PR ratings by AMD (again). If the 2.0 GHz is a 3000+ and you reduce it's speed by 10%, then the 1.8 GHz A64 should really be a 2700+. While the charts make the 2800+ look a lot slower in many instances, it is usually almost a perfect scaling with clock speed.
For example, the page on 3D Studio states, "It is likely that Lightwave is sensitive to memory speed, and memory speed differences could have had a part to play in this dichotomy in 3D rendering performance." So, you have the 1.8 GHz running 10% slower than the 2.0 GHz (or the 2.0 GHz is 11% faster if you prefer that). And the Lightwave scores? 61 seconds for the 2800+ and 55.3 for the 3000+. That makes the 2800+ 10% slower (or the 3000+ is 9% faster - timed tests give odd results). Basically, memory has nothing to do with it. The CPU core speed is the only real factor here (and L2 cache size if you look at the other A64 chips).
They're just calling them Newcastles for simplisity sake. Of course they're just Hammers with half of the L2 Cache disabled. As a matter of fact all Opterons/FX/64 up to now are one and the same chip with different packaging.
When a real new core comes out, you can be sure AT staff will know about it before you do :)
This new CG revision is probably a good sign we'll be seing real Newcastles and Socket 939 chips real soon.
But they again, why get excited. I for one am not gonna pay throug my teeth for few percentige points difference in some weird bechmark that works word/excel/powerpoint/... 10x faster than I could ever dream to. What's the point people? Bragging rights, I'll give you that, but is there anything else.
Then there are two revisions C0 (old one) and CG (new one) for the A64. The CO has one part number AP and CG two part numbers AR and AX. In the ensuing a64 core specs in the white paper, AP and AR have both 1MB and 512K L2s while AX is ONLY 512K L2 caches. Power and thermal specs are the same for all parts. So Newcastle could be AX (if K.Kubicki's comments about Newcastle having only 512K are correct) or it could be CG - the newer review. Or it is dual channel Sckt939 yet to be released. Take your pick.
The 3000+ is released under all part numbers (AP,AR and AX) while for the 2800+ there is only one: AX and hence may be the first true Newcastle. So, my bet is that the 3000+ AP and AR designations are crippled 1Mb L2 cache 512K variants and AX are smaller die size pure 512K L2 cored cpus.
well i build quite a few systems and I can not agree that it will have a much longer shelf (i'm gonna read that as usable)life IMHO in 2 years we will have a working 64bit computing enviroment and will be on like socket 1257 mobo's using enhanced ddr v8.3 and a solid state hdd so either way it's gonna be a whole new system. In my 10+ years of computing I have learned that you can not build a future proof computer. Peace..
fatdog, I agree as they do sell 3000+'s with 200MHx. FSB's. But I do have to say that a setup based on this will have a much longer shelf life then the regular AthlonXP if one was to buy one today, because they do have the possibility to upgrade to a different CPU at a later date without buying a new motherboard, instead of being forced to buy a whole new setup.
What really bothers me about this review is why in the world did they use an xp 3000+ running a 166mhz fsb ??? I think I can safly say most of us are running xp's that are overclocked to at least a 200fsb like my mobile 2600+ @ 2.6ghz 200x13 throw that in the mix and lets see who comes out as price/preformace leader
"All original Athlon 64s were based off the Clawhammer core; 130nm SOI with 1MB L2 cache. The recent Athlon 64 3000+ was also based on the ClawHammer core, but with half the L2 cache disabled"
and further:
"We did not find any mention of the Athlon 64 2800+ transitioning to the Newcastle core,"
Maybe AT needs to get together and have a group hug on this one. My understanding is that Newcastles are the new 512K L2 dual mem.bank Sckt939 cpus now being released in may.
I thought Unreal Tournament 2004 was already released?
I was under the impression that some of the 3000+s were indeed Clawhammers with half the cache disabled, and that some were true Newcastles manufactured at those specifications. I think the 2800+ is like that, too, in that some of them are ones that failed at 3000+ speeds and that others are manufactured at those specifications. But I'm not completely sure.
I agree with AtaStrumf, I don't see why people are making such a big deal over socket 939. The performance difference with dual channel memory has already been demonstrated to be negligible with socket 940 processors, so that's no reason to get 939 over 754. And upgradeability, in my eyes if you have the money to buy a new processor every few months or so, you shouldn't be concerned with upgradeability. People get socket 754 for value, so you only want to buy one processor every 18-24 months anyway, like which AtaStrumF said, a new socket should be out.
And speaking of little performance loss, I, too, would have liked to see overclocking results with the 2800+...after all, that's the whole point of it, really.
Most of the benchmarks are VPU limited. It would have been better to use older games with low resolutions in order to eliminate the graphics card from the equation. It's hard to tell which is better in gaming with this method, since with most of them it's so close it's within margin of error.
I'll just stick to my 2500+@3200+ on NF2Ultra400/SoundStorm mobo, thank you very much.
All these new CPUs look like a total waste of money, when there is such a cheap alternative out there (AthlonXP), that is not that much slower. At least not enough for anyone who doesn't run benchmarks all day long to notice. And that's most of the people, alhough not most AT readers :)
As for upgreadability that everybody is so concerned about. Forget about it! Just make sure that what you buy will last you 12-18 months, after that you can be preety sure you'll have to change at least the mobo with whatever CPU you will be getting then. Intel and AMD seem to be on top of that one.
And one last thing. Most of your readers like to OC their chips, so next time you do a review, try to OC it and include the results.
The 3000+ is a ClawHammer with 1/2 of the cache disabled. Starting soon, however AMD will transition the A64 from ClawHammer to Newcastle. I think this actually does start with the 2800+.
actually AMD have confirmed that the 3000+ is a Clawhammer with disabled chache (that failked in chache test with 1mb so half was disabled) ... also if you'll check those chips manufacturing and stepping code and cheeck AMD charts you'll discover its a clawhammer .... I dunno why anandtech keep claiming its a Newcastle since AMD sayd by themself that the Newcastles production will start only around the 2 quater of this year and the 3000+ were produced for a long time (mine is week 50 of 2003)
I keep wondering if these are in fact completely different cores, or if they're a regular "hammer" core with half the cache disabled. In other words, is an A64 3000+ just an A64 3200+ with half the cache disabled, similar to a Thorton? Or is it in fact a completely separate core with a different transistor count to reflect the smaller cache?
I was under the impression that the Newcastle core was made differently... if all that means is that it's a Hammer with half the cache disabled, then fine. But reading this makes it sound like the difference between a Thoroughbred B and a Barton core.
you can buy a barton 2500 and oc to 3200 (a simple fsb change) and that costs like 1/3rd the price of this. no point. great article though, it least it clarifies the (lack of) speed advantage over alternatives.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
20 Comments
Back to Article
Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - link
Kristopher #18, I presume your correction applies to my post #11 where I quote from your April 16th article. If this is the case then it still doesnt make sense as the 2800+ is only a CG stepping and therefore already IS a Newcastle so doesnt have to "transition". Also you quote:"In a nutshell, Clawhammer cores will all be replaced by Newcastle cores (130nm SOI, 512KB L2 cache). "
Well as the white paper declares CG cpus can be 1MB L2 (coded AR) or 512K (AR and AX). So if your above statement is right it CANT just be the CG review, it must be the AX variant of the CG review. The CG definition is not the stepping. There are three steppings in the CG family. SH7-CG corresponding to AR on the cpu designation, DH7-CG to AX and CH7-CG Christ knows?. see P6 of:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white...
All steppings have sckt 754 and 939 derivatives which in my book could be classed as steppings in their own right making 6 CG steppings (and CPUID command will return a different stepping No. for each sckt type). In the sckt 754 case, the SH7 stepping (AR) has a CPUID stepping identification return of F4Ah while DH7 (AX) has FC0h (and CH7 has F82h). This corresponds with your model 4 for Clawhammer and C for Newcastle but that doesnt take into account the model "F" ie the Sckt939 DH7-CG stepping (FF0h) soon to be released. My interpretation is that Newcastle is not just any 512K L2 A64 but the one where the L2 hasnt originated from a 1Mb L2 being crippled. So die size will determine true Newcastles (and further down the track Paris cores).
TrogdorJW - Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - link
Looks like this article was started a while back. "Unreal Tournament 2004 is coming down the line very shortly"!? Or maybe they just mean that the release version of UT2K4 has really shitty benchmarking in comparison to UT2K3? Probably. Still, the fact that there was *NO* overclocking information indicates that this is either old stuff just getting finished, and AT didn't want to redo the tests using one of the new 754 mobos that have a working PCI/AGP lock, or else they just pushed it out early.Something else to think about, the 1.8 GHz 2800+ compared to the 2.0 GHz 3000+ is a case of bad PR ratings by AMD (again). If the 2.0 GHz is a 3000+ and you reduce it's speed by 10%, then the 1.8 GHz A64 should really be a 2700+. While the charts make the 2800+ look a lot slower in many instances, it is usually almost a perfect scaling with clock speed.
For example, the page on 3D Studio states, "It is likely that Lightwave is sensitive to memory speed, and memory speed differences could have had a part to play in this dichotomy in 3D rendering performance." So, you have the 1.8 GHz running 10% slower than the 2.0 GHz (or the 2.0 GHz is 11% faster if you prefer that). And the Lightwave scores? 61 seconds for the 2800+ and 55.3 for the 3000+. That makes the 2800+ 10% slower (or the 3000+ is 9% faster - timed tests give odd results). Basically, memory has nothing to do with it. The CPU core speed is the only real factor here (and L2 cache size if you look at the other A64 chips).
KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - link
Pumpkinierre: That sentence should read "new Newcastle core"; meaning the new CG stepping.Kristopher
thebluesgnr - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
I'd like to point out that the "The test..." page is missing the motherboard used for the Athlon XP system.I'm guessing it's the ASUS A7N8X Deluxe 2.0?
AtaStrumf - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
They're just calling them Newcastles for simplisity sake. Of course they're just Hammers with half of the L2 Cache disabled. As a matter of fact all Opterons/FX/64 up to now are one and the same chip with different packaging.When a real new core comes out, you can be sure AT staff will know about it before you do :)
This new CG revision is probably a good sign we'll be seing real Newcastles and Socket 939 chips real soon.
But they again, why get excited. I for one am not gonna pay throug my teeth for few percentige points difference in some weird bechmark that works word/excel/powerpoint/... 10x faster than I could ever dream to. What's the point people? Bragging rights, I'll give you that, but is there anything else.
Pumpkinierre - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
On the Newcastle naming if you look at the AMD white paper (p16-10):http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white...
Then there are two revisions C0 (old one) and CG (new one) for the A64. The CO has one part number AP and CG two part numbers AR and AX. In the ensuing a64 core specs in the white paper, AP and AR have both 1MB and 512K L2s while AX is ONLY 512K L2 caches. Power and thermal specs are the same for all parts. So Newcastle could be AX (if K.Kubicki's comments about Newcastle having only 512K are correct) or it could be CG - the newer review. Or it is dual channel Sckt939 yet to be released. Take your pick.
The 3000+ is released under all part numbers (AP,AR and AX) while for the 2800+ there is only one: AX and hence may be the first true Newcastle. So, my bet is that the 3000+ AP and AR designations are crippled 1Mb L2 cache 512K variants and AX are smaller die size pure 512K L2 cored cpus.
fatdog6 - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
well i build quite a few systems and I can not agree that it will have a much longer shelf(i'm gonna read that as usable)life IMHO in 2 years
we will have a working 64bit computing enviroment and will be on like socket 1257 mobo's using enhanced ddr v8.3 and a solid state hdd so either way it's gonna be a whole new system. In my 10+ years of computing I have learned that you can not build a future proof computer.
Peace..
Myrandex - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
fatdog, I agree as they do sell 3000+'s with 200MHx. FSB's. But I do have to say that a setup based on this will have a much longer shelf life then the regular AthlonXP if one was to buy one today, because they do have the possibility to upgrade to a different CPU at a later date without buying a new motherboard, instead of being forced to buy a whole new setup.fatdog6 - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
What really bothers me about this review is why in the world did they use an xp 3000+ running a 166mhz fsb ??? I think I can safly say most of us are running xp's that are overclocked to at least a 200fsb like my mobile 2600+ @ 2.6ghz 200x13 throw that in the mix and lets see who comes out as price/preformace leaderPumpkinierre - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
On Newcastle cores from Kris. Kubicki's april 16th article (http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2027):"All original Athlon 64s were based off the Clawhammer core; 130nm SOI with 1MB L2 cache. The recent Athlon 64 3000+ was also based on the ClawHammer core, but with half the L2 cache disabled"
and further:
"We did not find any mention of the Athlon 64 2800+ transitioning to the Newcastle core,"
Maybe AT needs to get together and have a group hug on this one. My understanding is that Newcastles are the new 512K L2 dual mem.bank Sckt939 cpus now being released in may.
Pollock - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
I thought Unreal Tournament 2004 was already released?I was under the impression that some of the 3000+s were indeed Clawhammers with half the cache disabled, and that some were true Newcastles manufactured at those specifications. I think the 2800+ is like that, too, in that some of them are ones that failed at 3000+ speeds and that others are manufactured at those specifications. But I'm not completely sure.
I agree with AtaStrumf, I don't see why people are making such a big deal over socket 939. The performance difference with dual channel memory has already been demonstrated to be negligible with socket 940 processors, so that's no reason to get 939 over 754. And upgradeability, in my eyes if you have the money to buy a new processor every few months or so, you shouldn't be concerned with upgradeability. People get socket 754 for value, so you only want to buy one processor every 18-24 months anyway, like which AtaStrumF said, a new socket should be out.
And speaking of little performance loss, I, too, would have liked to see overclocking results with the 2800+...after all, that's the whole point of it, really.
Rant over.
SKiller - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
those are OEM prices btwSKiller - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
The current street prices for those are currently about what's listed below.XP 3000+ $120
64 2800+ $170
64 3000+ $210
Cybercat - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
Most of the benchmarks are VPU limited. It would have been better to use older games with low resolutions in order to eliminate the graphics card from the equation. It's hard to tell which is better in gaming with this method, since with most of them it's so close it's within margin of error.AtaStrumf - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
I'll just stick to my 2500+@3200+ on NF2Ultra400/SoundStorm mobo, thank you very much.All these new CPUs look like a total waste of money, when there is such a cheap alternative out there (AthlonXP), that is not that much slower. At least not enough for anyone who doesn't run benchmarks all day long to notice. And that's most of the people, alhough not most AT readers :)
As for upgreadability that everybody is so concerned about. Forget about it! Just make sure that what you buy will last you 12-18 months, after that you can be preety sure you'll have to change at least the mobo with whatever CPU you will be getting then. Intel and AMD seem to be on top of that one.
And one last thing. Most of your readers like to OC their chips, so next time you do a review, try to OC it and include the results.
skiboysteve - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
yeah all these graphs are wrong. the newcastle is a completly different core than what is tested here.wassup4u2 - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
The 3000+ is a ClawHammer with 1/2 of the cache disabled. Starting soon, however AMD will transition the A64 from ClawHammer to Newcastle. I think this actually does start with the 2800+.iCeVbLaSt - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
actually AMD have confirmed that the 3000+ is a Clawhammer with disabled chache (that failked in chache test with 1mb so half was disabled) ... also if you'll check those chips manufacturing and stepping code and cheeck AMD charts you'll discover its a clawhammer .... I dunno why anandtech keep claiming its a Newcastle since AMD sayd by themself that the Newcastles production will start only around the 2 quater of this year and the 3000+ were produced for a long time (mine is week 50 of 2003)Jeff7181 - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
I keep wondering if these are in fact completely different cores, or if they're a regular "hammer" core with half the cache disabled. In other words, is an A64 3000+ just an A64 3200+ with half the cache disabled, similar to a Thorton? Or is it in fact a completely separate core with a different transistor count to reflect the smaller cache?I was under the impression that the Newcastle core was made differently... if all that means is that it's a Hammer with half the cache disabled, then fine. But reading this makes it sound like the difference between a Thoroughbred B and a Barton core.
f11 - Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - link
you can buy a barton 2500 and oc to 3200 (a simple fsb change) and that costs like 1/3rd the price of this. no point. great article though, it least it clarifies the (lack of) speed advantage over alternatives.