Interesting article. What I'd really like to see though is the difference between the old chips with 2x1MB cache and the new ones with 2x512KB cache. Also found it interesting that the power consumption ddin't improve going from 90nm to 65nm. I guess AMD had really mastered that 90nm process.
No overclocking or temperature comparison? I was interested in that, and it's the only reason I started reading it in the first place. I only hope you include these things in the Intel article - since they are so crucial to the enthusiast community (which makes up the majority of the daily readers of this site).
Edit: also no mention of the difference in operating voltage between 90 & 65nm parts (1.184/1.184 & 1.328/1.344, respectively from the CPU-Z shots). Why the .14-.16 voltage bump when you're going to a smaller manufacturing tech? How did the 90nm stepping cut so much power when it's running at the same voltage as the original?
This article misses on the most obvious question - voltage!!!! Why are the 65nm parts not lower voltage - and what are the procs capable of - undervolt / overclock????
Any idiot can tell you that an x2-5000 will all be the same!!! Thats why they have the same model number!! My windsor 90nm F2 stepping dual core runs stable with a slight overclock at 1.10 volts core. Is 65 any better?? No idea after reading this article.