Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which core is better?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 9, 2007 12:22:16 AM

Been looking at Athlon X2, and I'm unsure about which core to go with.

Which is considered the better core for performance, Windsor or Brisbane? I see that Windsor is 90nm and Brisbane is 65nm, so this means that Brisbane is more efficient but the Windsor is better at overclocking? Is this correct?

Thanks

More about : core

February 9, 2007 12:27:45 AM

Quote:
Been looking at Athlon X2, and I'm unsure about which core to go with.

Which is considered the better core for performance, Windsor or Brisbane? I see that Windsor is 90nm and Brisbane is 65nm, so this means that Brisbane is more efficient but the Windsor is better at overclocking? Is this correct?

Thanks


Windsor is a little more powerful per clock due to its lower latency cache, but Brisbane runs cooler and there really isn't a noticeable difference in performance. They overclock extremely similarly.
February 9, 2007 2:57:01 AM

Quote:
Been looking at Athlon X2, and I'm unsure about which core to go with.

Which is considered the better core for performance, Windsor or Brisbane? I see that Windsor is 90nm and Brisbane is 65nm, so this means that Brisbane is more efficient but the Windsor is better at overclocking? Is this correct?

Thanks


Windsor is a little more powerful per clock due to its lower latency cache, but Brisbane runs cooler and there really isn't a noticeable difference in performance. They overclock extremely similarly.
I don't know about that. Multiple people, (not just AMDzone) have been able to get to 3 Ghz on the lower end brisbane chips with stock hsf's. The x2 3600+(65nm) is 3Ghz over-clock-able (depending on stepping, I suppose)
4000+(65nm) is also 3Ghz over-clock-able (also depending on stepping, I suppose)
x2 3800+ is around 2.6 Ghz stock hsf, along with x2 3600+
February 9, 2007 3:11:35 AM

Quote:
Been looking at Athlon X2, and I'm unsure about which core to go with.

Which is considered the better core for performance, Windsor or Brisbane? I see that Windsor is 90nm and Brisbane is 65nm, so this means that Brisbane is more efficient but the Windsor is better at overclocking? Is this correct?

Thanks


Windsor is a little more powerful per clock due to its lower latency cache, but Brisbane runs cooler and there really isn't a noticeable difference in performance. They overclock extremely similarly.
I don't know about that. Multiple people, (not just AMDzone) have been able to get to 3 Ghz on the lower end brisbane chips with stock hsf's. The x2 3600+(65nm) is 3Ghz over-clock-able (depending on stepping, I suppose)
4000+(65nm) is also 3Ghz over-clock-able (also depending on stepping, I suppose)
x2 3800+ is around 2.6 Ghz stock hsf, along with x2 3600+

I know of AMDzone's OC, but I haven't really seen others. Links?

Either way, once you hit 3Ghz on either process you've about reached the end of the line with the current architecture and whatever current 65nm process revisions are in place.
Related resources
!