Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Which is a better core

Which is a better core

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Which is a better core

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
blackcat002   05-07-2007 at 08:19:19 PM

Which is a better core 2 have the Brisbane or the Windsor ???

plz help.

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
lostandwandering   05-07-2007 at 09:13:27 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

¿Que?



I agree. Uhhhh...what???

I think you meant X2. The Brisbane has more L2 cache, so I would assume it's better. I haven't used an AMD CPU in a while so I don't know for sure.

Or you meant Conroe or Allendale. Conroe would be the better choice except for the E4400 vs the E6300/6320.

Reply to lostandwandering
Scougs   05-07-2007 at 09:44:26 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Which is a better core 2 have the Brisbane or the Windsor ???

plz help.



I think he means "Which is a better core to have: Brisbane or Windsor?"

As for the answer, I think it might depend on which models you are talking about. I think some of the Windsors come with 2x512kB of L2 cache while others have 2x1MB. I do know that Windsors are 90nm parts while Brisbane is 65nm. The Brisbane would likely be a better overclocker for that reason, but I'm not really familiar with the performance of either of these cores.

Reply to Scougs
EXT64   05-07-2007 at 09:45:03 PM
- 0 +

I think he means "core to have", not "Core 2".

As to the question, bigger cache is a little better, but it doesn't make a huge difference in most cases.

Reply to EXT64
lostandwandering   05-07-2007 at 09:52:25 PM
- 0 +

Makes perfect sense. I was still right even though my delivery was a little off. :roll:

Reply to lostandwandering
fidgewinkle   05-07-2007 at 10:16:56 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Which is a better core 2 have the Brisbane or the Windsor ???

plz help.



@ the same speeds windsors are generally faster than the brisbane versions due to latency in the cache of the brisbanes. However, the brisbanes run cooler and generally I believe overclock better as well.

Considering that Windsors are being clocked at 3GHz max and Brisbanes at 2.6GHz max, I would be inclined to agree with your assertion that Brisbanes overclock better. The situation may change in the future, but as of now, it is evident that AMD is falling down at 65nm.

Reply to fidgewinkle
baldeagle   05-07-2007 at 10:31:32 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Which is a better core 2 have the Brisbane or the Windsor ???

plz help.



Conroe > Brisbane and Windsors are X2 not Core2

Reply to baldeagle
viperabyss   05-07-2007 at 10:35:24 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Which is a better core 2 have the Brisbane or the Windsor ???

plz help.


please refrain yourself from using online abbreviation. it really gives people headache and confusion when reading them.

Reply to viperabyss
Scougs   05-07-2007 at 11:00:12 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Which is a better core 2 have the Brisbane or the Windsor ???

plz help.


please refrain yourself from using online abbreviation. it really gives people headache and confusion when reading them.

Agreed! If read carefully, a reasonably knowlegable person will understand. However, it is always a good idea to write clearly. So many people are getting hung up on the core 2 vs. core to thing that it makes it hard to find the real answer to the question.

Reply to Scougs
Scougs   05-07-2007 at 11:02:56 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

The situation may change in the future, but as of now, it is evident that AMD is falling down at 65nm.



I don't really understand what this means. I have a friend who just got a Brisbane core Athlon64 and he said that he has it overclocked to I think it was 3.1GHz. I think he even said that he has lowered the core voltage instead of raising it.

Reply to Scougs
baldeagle   05-07-2007 at 11:29:32 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

The situation may change in the future, but as of now, it is evident that AMD is falling down at 65nm.



I don't really understand what this means. I have a friend who just got a Brisbane core Athlon64 and he said that he has it overclocked to I think it was 3.1GHz. I think he even said that he has lowered the core voltage instead of raising it.

That would be very interesting can you post a benchmark? 8O

Reply to baldeagle
Scougs   05-08-2007 at 12:30:03 AM
- 0 +

Quote :

The situation may change in the future, but as of now, it is evident that AMD is falling down at 65nm.



I don't really understand what this means. I have a friend who just got a Brisbane core Athlon64 and he said that he has it overclocked to I think it was 3.1GHz. I think he even said that he has lowered the core voltage instead of raising it.

That would be very interesting can you post a benchmark? 8O

I'll check with him and see. It might take a little while though.

Reply to Scougs
Scougs   05-08-2007 at 03:14:50 AM
- 0 +

My friend has an Athlon64 X2 3600+ Brisbane core.

He has it overclocked from stock 1.9GHz to 3.02Ghz @ 1.37V.
RAM is running at DDR2-1115

He is running XP 64-bit edition so he says that the benchmarks don't work very well for him.

Reply to Scougs
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Which is a better core
Go to:

There are 615 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.432 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them