Claw Hammer or San Diego? 6 replies

Please wait...



50 XP

7th March 2005

0 Uploads

276 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

Hey all...well, I was wondering, what is better, AMD Athlon 64 939, Clawhammer core, or San Diego? I would assume San Diego, since it has a lesser voltage, meaning it should run cooler, and it is also the core used in Athlon FX chips, well, what would you suggest, Claw Hammer, or San Diego? Oh, and most likely, there will be no overclocking.

Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

San Diego, without a doubt. The Clawhammer chip is getting old now, and the San Diego chip gives out more power per watt, is more efficient, more powerful - You get the idea.


Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

San Diego is better, first off its based on the smaller, and more effiecient 90nm manufacturing process where Clawhammer is based on the larger 130nm process. San Diego is also more power and heat friendly with its lower voltage. And one last thing, with San Diego you get support for SSE3.


Pro-Filer thinks I'm cool!!

50 XP

7th July 2004

0 Uploads

522 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

Simply put...if you wan't this in a long term computer. Get a San Diego because Claw Hammer is getting old. ;)



50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

Also San Diego allows you to have all your ram slots full and wont drop down in ram speed... Found that out my self...

AegenemmnoN VIP Member

The cream of the crop

228,590 XP

20th August 2003

0 Uploads

21,534 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

wow, i bought the San Diego after a friend recommended it to me and now im finding out how kick ass it is. cant wait to put it to the test.


I didn't make it!

0 XP

#7 14 years ago

Cool well im deffo guna get a San Diego core the processor i was originally looking at had a Venice core