65nm AM2's

[jlbenedict]

How are the 65nm AM2 Brisbanes?

Thinking about building a SFF system; will definately have to run something besides my smoking hot Cedar Mill

 

[Captante]

They run a little cooler, but supposedly are actually slower then the older 90nm chips ... frankly unless you already have an AM2 SFF & just want to upgrade the cpu I'd go with a C2D instead.

 

[Regs]

The Brisbane belongs in a show room where people study it for its purpose.

 

[Kur]

Originally posted by: Regs
The Brisbane belongs in a show room where people study it for its purpose.

When A64's came out were they perfect? Far from it. It's their first chip on 65nm give em a break jeez.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: Kur
When A64's came out were they perfect? Far from it. It's their first chip on 65nm give em a break jeez.

No, after all they've been improving upon them for the past couple years...but they were definitely better than anything else at the time .

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500

Originally posted by: Kur
When A64's came out were they perfect? Far from it. It's their first chip on 65nm give em a break jeez.

No, after all they've been improving upon them for the past couple years...but they were definitely better than anything else at the time .

Yes I think all things good/bad are relative, if there's nothing better than it you call it good like how we perceived X2 line before C2D but when there's something better you call it bad. So it's relative. If Brisbane is the top of the line chip right now, I doubt people will say Anything negative about it, it'll just be praises. But unfortunately there's C2D so people including myself aren't looking at AMD line with praise anymore.

 

[Zenoth]

To each empire its time.

 

[Yellowbeard]

They are decent CPUs but, they offer virtually no benefits over a 90nm CPU. For OCing, the limit seems to still be the memory controller and the die shrink from 90nm to 65nm is little or no improvement in performance.