Hi,
I'm rebuilding my HTPC and want to move to an AM2 proc. I was sold on the 65nm Brisbane 5000+ because it was a 65W part and cooler parts = less fan noise.
But then I did some research and found out that:
A) Brisbanes are actually a little slower than their 90nm counterparts.
and
B) AMD has Windsor 90nm "Energy Efficient" parts that are rated at the same wattage and clock with twice the L2 cache (Like the X2 5200+).
So my questions are, since they cost about the same and have the same wattage - should I resist the "latest and greatest" (i.e. 65nm CPUs) and go with the Energy Efficient 90nm part with more cache? Will the larger cache translate into improved performance in media apps (ripping DVDs, transcoding, etc.)?
No matter what I'm going to wait for the April 9 price cuts, but I wanted to get some input on weather the 65nm parts had any advantage over the 90nm EEs.
Thanks,
-LB
I'm rebuilding my HTPC and want to move to an AM2 proc. I was sold on the 65nm Brisbane 5000+ because it was a 65W part and cooler parts = less fan noise.
But then I did some research and found out that:
A) Brisbanes are actually a little slower than their 90nm counterparts.
and
B) AMD has Windsor 90nm "Energy Efficient" parts that are rated at the same wattage and clock with twice the L2 cache (Like the X2 5200+).
So my questions are, since they cost about the same and have the same wattage - should I resist the "latest and greatest" (i.e. 65nm CPUs) and go with the Energy Efficient 90nm part with more cache? Will the larger cache translate into improved performance in media apps (ripping DVDs, transcoding, etc.)?
No matter what I'm going to wait for the April 9 price cuts, but I wanted to get some input on weather the 65nm parts had any advantage over the 90nm EEs.
Thanks,
-LB