7th March 2005
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.
3rd May 2005
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
25th November 2003
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!!
7th July 2004
Simply put...if you wan't this in a long term computer. Get a San Diego because Claw Hammer is getting old. ;)
21st February 2005
Also San Diego allows you to have all your ram slots full and wont drop down in ram speed... Found that out my self...
The cream of the crop
19th August 2003
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!
Cool well im deffo guna get a San Diego core the processor i was originally looking at had a Venice core