I was just looking at the 939 'winchesters' on newegg.com

arent the speeds of the 'winchesters' raited .2ghz less than there 'newcastle' counterparts?

If so look here...someone should tell them about this...

3000+
http://www.newegg.com/app/View...esc....-103-499&depa=1' ">http://www.newegg.com/app/View...tion=19-103-499&depa=1

3200+
http://www.newegg.com/app/View...esc....-103-500&depa=1' ">http://www.newegg.com/app/View...tion=19-103-500&depa=1

-------------------------
Apnea>>
Athlon 64 'newcatle' 3000+
MSI K8N neo platinum
2x512mb Corsair VS pc-3200
Sapphire 128mb Radeon 9600xt
Antec 'true power' 430watt
Windows XP pro w/ sp2

I think AMD is going to have to rework the specs for the 3200+ Athlon 64 because the it is fully copying the specs of 3500+. I also believe that the 3000+ probably has to be reworked; maybe make it the only processor to have a 1MB L2 cache other than the FX or maybe discontinue the 2800+ because the way they are going, a 3000+ on Socket 939 will work the same as a 3200+ on Socket 754.

These should be the specs of the...

3000+
1.8 GHz clocke speed
Socket 939 architecture
256K L1 cache or 128K L1 cache (depending on L2 cache)
768K L2 cache or 896K L2 cache (depending on L1 cache)

The 3200+ should be kept @ 2.0 GHz and they should make sure that the 3000+ doesn't beat the [content edited] out of the 3200+ because an total 1 MB cache will beat a 640K cache.