Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Energy Efficient X2s, any performance difference?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 16, 2007 3:07:02 AM

I'm looking to upgrade my system and i'm thinking of am2 X2s just because they are so cheap but found an energy efficient 4200 that looks the same as the normal 4200 but cheaper the only difference I can see is that the Energy Efficient one is manchester and the non is windsor.

So I was thinking they might not be as powerful as the non Energy Efficient ones thats why they are cheaper, but the site i'm looking at Amd X2 socket AM2's Has 5200's more expensive than 5600's so i'm not so sure.

Is there any difference? will I really be able to tell?
I'm all for the Energy Efficient one cuz it'll save abit on my Energy bill (which is crazily high hear in the uk)

Thanks in advance for any help or info
April 16, 2007 3:31:13 AM

Same performance, lower voltages / heat.

Go for it.
April 16, 2007 3:59:18 AM

ya the 65nm chips have problems with alot of mobos unless you do a bios update - beware!
Related resources
April 16, 2007 4:05:20 AM

Quote:
ya the 65nm chips have problems with alot of mobos unless you do a bios update - beware!


None of the EE versions are 65nm, only 90nm.

And I've never heard of them having problems.
April 16, 2007 4:18:32 AM

Quote:
ya the 65nm chips have problems with alot of mobos unless you do a bios update - beware!


None of the EE versions are 65nm, only 90nm.

And I've never heard of them having problems.

Well there is a common issue with the 65nm procs where mobos will overvolt them, but the 90nm EE versions don't have this problem
April 16, 2007 4:20:05 AM

Quote:
ya the 65nm chips have problems with alot of mobos unless you do a bios update - beware!


None of the EE versions are 65nm, only 90nm.

And I've never heard of them having problems.

Actually all of the released 65 nano products (The "Brisbanes") have the same power use rating (65 watts) as the EE vesions of the old 90 nano parts. - Most of AMD's 90 nano parts are rated at 89 watts, except for the 6000+ which is rated at 125 watts (I think)

The 65 nano Brisbane parts have rather higher L2 latency than the old 90 nano Windsor parts so in some games and applications actually perform a bit worse than thier 90 ano brothers of the same rating.

This difference is pretty small and it is unlikely you will ever notice it however.
April 16, 2007 4:23:34 AM

Quote:
ya the 65nm chips have problems with alot of mobos unless you do a bios update - beware!


None of the EE versions are 65nm, only 90nm.

And I've never heard of them having problems.

Actually all of the released 65 nano products (The "Brisbanes") have the same power use rating (65 watts) as the EE vesions of the old 90 nano parts. - Most of AMD's 90 nano parts are rated at 89 watts, except for the 6000+ which is rated at 125 watts (I think)

The 65 nano Brisbane parts have rather higher L2 latency than the old 90 nano Windsor parts so in some games and applications actually perform a bit worse than thier 90 ano brothers of the same rating.

This difference is pretty small and it is unlikely you will ever notice it however.

I know they have the same rating, but since they're switching everything to 65nm they dropped the "EE" from the end of the 65nm parts even if they are 65w.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2007 4:42:13 AM

I think there may be some EE 65nm ones too, but I'm not sure.
April 18, 2007 10:56:08 PM

thanks for all the help sorry for the late reply was away at my girlfriends
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2007 1:39:24 AM

Gotta keep your priorities right. :wink:
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2007 2:03:14 AM

Just safer.
!