AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Newegg...
Topic Summary:
Created On: 10/04/2004 02:10 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 10/04/2004 02:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Senior Member

Posts: 696
Joined: 08/12/2004

I was just looking at the 939 'winchesters' on

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

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

3000+' ">

3200+' ">

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
 10/04/2004 03:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Senior Member

Posts: 7822
Joined: 08/14/2004

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...

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.
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2015 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information