Newcastle vs Clawhammer

Is there a difference ,overclocking wise, between the Newcastle and
Clawhammer? Does one overclock better then the other? Does Clawhammer have
better performance? What's the scoop on the differences between these two
CPU's?


Clawhammer:

AMD Part number: ADA3400BOX
Co Clawhammer
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
FSB: Integrated into chip
Cache Level 1: 64KB+64KB
Cache Level 2: 1MB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13 Micron
Socket: Socket 754
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+


Newxastle:

AMD Part Number: ADA3400AXBOX
Co Newcastle
Operating Frequency: 2.4GHz
FSB: Integrated into chip
Cache: Level 1 64KB+64KB
Cache Level 2 512KB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13 Micron
Socket: Socket 754
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:49:27 +0000, JS wrote:

Is there a difference ,overclocking wise, between the Newcastle and
Clawhammer? Does one overclock better then the other? Does Clawhammer have
better performance? What's the scoop on the differences between these two
CPU's?

Co Clawhammer
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
Cache Level 2: 1MB

Co Newcastle
Operating Frequency: 2.4GHz
Cache Level 2 512KB

The differences should be obvious. For overall operation, the newcastle
should be faster. However, if you overclock the Clawhammer to the same
core speed as the Newcastle, it would be faster in memory intensive apps.
In the end, it doesn't matter because you won't notice the difference.:-)

As to which will clock the highest, I'd say the Newcastle. Which would
overclock from it default speed the most is probably a toss up since the
newcastle already runs 200MHz faster than Clawhammer..

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm