AMD Athlon 64 CPU Cores 3 replies

Please wait...

Deimos

Pierce the Heavens

50 XP

27th January 2003

0 Uploads

9,197 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

Hey all, I have a question. I plan on getting an AMD Athlon 64 FX 55 (or 57) soon, and I am wondering about cores. So far I have seen Sledgehammer, Clawhammer, and San Diego. My main question comes to this: What does each one specialize in? Is one better than the other? Newer? Older?

All help is appreciated. ;)




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

None of them "specialise". In fact, no desktop core really does (though the VIA C3 does do MPEG encoding on-die IIRC). The FX-57 is only available with the San Diego core, though the FX-55 can be had in either ClawHammer or San Diego. I'm not sure if Hammer or ClawHammer was released first, nor can I honestly tell you what the real difference between the two is. Not that it really matters, because Hammer cores seem to have pretty much disappeared. At any rate, ClawHammer was a 130nm part. San Diego is essentially nothing more than a die shrink of *Hammer. San Diego, for it's part, is built on a 90nm process, has SSE3 support, an improved memory controller, some minor revisions, and generally runs a little cooler than it's predecessors, from what I can tell. Between the two, you should go with San Diego unless you can score a screamin' deal on a *Hammer part. Caveat: AMD went way too far with the *Hammer series of cores. Between Hammer, ClawHammer and SledgeHammer it's pretty tough to figure it all out. I believe one was the core from the original Opteron. The second to appear went (again, I think) to early 939 CPUs. The third may have been modified for use in 754 and/or DTR chips. Monster_user might have more insight into this, I seem to recall that he did last time around, at any rate.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

I believe it goes like this in order of Oldest to newest: Clawhammer > Sledgehammer > San Diego The Clawhammer chips are available in both Socket 754, and 939. making up most if not all of the Socket 754 Mobile/DTR chips (i assume these are the ones your talking about C3) and the top of the line 3700+. I did a quick google search and found a article on AMD's Hammer processers, the article states that all the Hammer chips were meant for the Opteron line with Clawhammer being for the Workstation, and SledgeHammer being for the Servers, but thats as far as it goes, so it seems that Clawhammer and Sledgehammer were migrated into the Desktop Athlon 64 line after debuting in the Opterons. And the only Processers in the Athlon line that get to see the SledgeHammer core are the 4000+ and FX55 i think, and i'm pretty sure that SledgeHammer is only in Socket 939 for the Athlons. And as C3 said, both of the Hammer chips are built on the 130nm Process where the San Diego is built on the 90nm Process and therefore will run cooler, use less power, and it gives better clock for clock performance. Also San Diego is a pretty good overclocker. So to answer your question if one is better than the other, then yes, San Diego would be the best.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago
RemanWarbirdI believe it goes like this in order of Oldest to newest: Clawhammer > Sledgehammer > San Diego

ClawHammer is in fact older than SledgeHammer. It's figuring out where to put Hammer itself that's confusing.

I did a quick google search and found a article on AMD's Hammer processers, the article states that all the Hammer chips were meant for the Opteron line with Clawhammer being for the Workstation, and SledgeHammer being for the Servers, but thats as far as it goes, so it seems that Clawhammer and Sledgehammer were migrated into the Desktop Athlon 64 line after debuting in the Opterons.

That's my understanding as well. At first I don't think AMD planned a socket 939. That pin change from 940 I know was to differentiate between Opteron (with it's Registered memory controller) from the new "entusiast" level A64 (which has an Unbuffered controller). I suspect, upon reading your post, that this might've been the point in which Hammer and ClawHammer diverged. If that's the case, then I'd wager that Hammer became the 940 core and ClawHammer the 939 core. Newcastle, FWIW, was the same core as ClawHammer, but with half the cache.

And the only Processers in the Athlon line that get to see the SledgeHammer core are the 4000+ and FX55 i think, and i'm pretty sure that SledgeHammer is only in Socket 939 for the Athlons.

This is the case anymore, but I know that there used to be more SledgeHammer parts, which I believe included the FX-53 and (possibly) the S939 FX-51. And thanks. I think you just solved one of the longstanding mysteries of AMD for me :beer: