Winchester or Clawhammer core?

[carl4286]

I am looking at CPU's for my new computer, and I have decided that the best I can afford is the AMD Athlon 64 3500+. My only question is, do I want this CPU with a Winchester or a Clawhammer core? The only difference I can see is that the Winchester is based on the 90nm process, and the Clawhammer is based on 130nm. This would seem to indicate that the Winchester would run cooler, however, the FX-55 is based off the Clawhammer core, which would seem to indicate that the Clawhammer core is superior. Also, the OEM Winchester version is $5 more than Retail Clawhammer version, which indicated that the Winchester is better. So which one?

[Eagle One]

the clawhammer has 1mb of cache, and i didnt know that there was a clawhammer 3500+, and the winchester, as you said, is based on the 90nm process compared to the 130nm process of that of the clawhammer resulting in a lower power consumption and a lot better for overclocking as it runs cooler as well

the clawhammer will be better as cache is important, but if you want to have clock speeds in excess of 2.6 or 2.8ghz, then go winchester

[carl4286]

The 3500+ with the Clawhammer core only has 512k of L2 cache, not 1MB. So with that aside, is the Winchester an all around better core? (atleast on the 3500+)

[*The.Doctor]

i'd go with the winchester, not because it's a overly better core, but like eagle said it uses less power and can overclock better.