AMD Athlon64 Newcastle 3000+ AX?

[Spragleknas]

Hva er forskjellen på denne og "vanlig" AMD64 3000+?

Bedre siden den er dyrere?

 

Link:

http://www.databutikken.com/no/default.php...d=ATH64-3000AXR

[Spragleknas]

Fanden ... Google ass... sorry ... til infp da...

 

Introduction

By now you've seen that AMD's 64-bit technology is here to stay. From the start the Athlon 64 and FX have put up the numbers to compete with intel's finest in the 32bit world, and added on top the ability to handle upcoming 64-bit applications. So with more people upgrading daily to the new AMD platforms, the question is no longer "Will AMD 64-bit technology make it?" but "Which iteration is for me?"

 

Currently, there are two 64 bit options, the Athlon 64 and the Athlon FX. For the vast majority of users, the Athlon FX is out of the question, thanks to the $700+ price tag. Among Athlon 64s there are also two options. When Athlon 64 came out there was only one core, Clawhammer. However with the 3000+ comes the new Newcastle core. The sole difference is in cache amount. A Clawhammer CPU, what the 3200+ and 3400+ are, includes 1MB of L2 cache. The Newcastle powered 3000+ contains 512k of L2 cache. Performance wise, most testing has shown that halving the cache does not translate to less performance. As a matter of fact the 3000+ does a great job of keeping up with this big-cache brethren. What the lower cache does lower is the price. A $200 price tag puts the 3000+ in the reach of even the stingier budget system buyers. So today we will be taking a look at just how much better the 3000+ is than the last generation of AMD CPUs, and whether or not now is the time to hop on the 64-bit bandwagon.

 

http://www.ocfaq.com/reviews/AMD/athlon64-3000/

Endret 5. august 2004 av JEG76