Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ Windsor

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 19, 2007 8:41:30 AM

Does this processor only have a 512 L2 cache? I thought all AMD X2 dual core processors had at least a 1mb. Also, is the windsor better than this. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
March 19, 2007 10:02:10 AM

Quote:
Does this processor only have a 512 L2 cache? I thought all AMD X2 dual core processors had at least a 1mb. Also, is the windsor better than this. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
They do, but that's combined cache (both cores) 2x512k. It's similar to the HT spec. Some claim it as 1000MHz, some say 2000MHz. :) 
March 19, 2007 10:04:49 AM

The Windsor X2 3600+ has 265K L2 for each core but it's 2.0GHz compared to 1.9 of the brisbane makes it a better performar @ stock speed.
Related resources
March 19, 2007 10:08:23 AM

Ok great. Thanks for all the replies. :) 
March 19, 2007 1:24:46 PM

Quote:
The Windsor X2 3600+ has 265K L2 for each core but it's 2.0GHz compared to 1.9 of the brisbane makes it a better performar @ stock speed.


That's not a lot of cache, though. I'd much prefer the Brisbane.
March 19, 2007 4:41:58 PM

Quote:
The Windsor X2 3600+ has 265K L2 for each core but it's 2.0GHz compared to 1.9 of the brisbane makes it a better performar @ stock speed.


That's not a lot of cache, though. I'd much prefer the Brisbane.


Yea, i was debating on that. I think i will go with the Brisbane. Thanks.
March 19, 2007 4:47:11 PM

But performance on stock speeds actually is higher for the Windsor and 256K is still not that little for a K8 chip, only should cut a 2-3% performance at most compared to 512K L2, while 1.9 to 2.0 is 5% and more if you consider the higher latency of the Brisbane.
March 19, 2007 4:47:42 PM

Quote:
The Windsor X2 3600+ has 265K L2 for each core but it's 2.0GHz compared to 1.9 of the brisbane makes it a better performar @ stock speed.


That's not a lot of cache, though. I'd much prefer the Brisbane.


Yea, i was debating on that. I think i will go with the Brisbane. Thanks.

Absolutely buy it over the 90nm version. More cache, lower power consumption, greater overclockability - all factors that go in the 65nm version's favor.
March 19, 2007 9:09:31 PM

Quote:
But performance on stock speeds actually is higher for the Windsor and 256K is still not that little for a K8 chip, only should cut a 2-3% performance at most compared to 512K L2, while 1.9 to 2.0 is 5% and more if you consider the higher latency of the Brisbane.
If you have any plans to overclock, then it's the same with cache and cores....you can't add cores/cache, once you've bought it...but you can overclock to similar speed. I would grab the Brisbane as well.
March 19, 2007 9:45:26 PM

Me too, but only because it OCs better and has more L2. If I were to buy it for someone I know is not OC-ing, I'd go with the Windsor.
!