Difference between 90nm and 0.13um Athlon 64???

[JasonG]

Is it really worth getting the 90nm Athlon 64 vs. the 0.13 um?

Is the power requirements/temp much lower with the 90 nm?

Are there any other differences?

Thanks for your help.

Jason

 

[Mik3y]

runs cooler, uses less power, higher overclockability, and more potential for amd.

 

[flloyd]

Here is an nice little review of 90nm vs. 130 nm. HTH

 

[Markfw]

Yes, but they compare a 3200+ winchester(90nm) to a 3500+ newcastle(130nm) and the winchester still won, at stock, and OC'ed to the same speed !

 

[Matrix333]

Edited: nevermind

 

[gxshockwav]

if you're not getting a socket939 board, you dont need to ask this question since winchester CPUs are only for that socket.

90mm parts = better, cooler temps, meaning more potential for overclocking..that's the only difference.

 

[JasonG]

Thanks for the info guys!

That review was quite interesting.

I think I'll be getting the new shuttle case (SN95G5) with a 3500+ 90 nm. Should be quite speedy... and cooler.

Jason

 

[RealityTime]

my 3500+ 130nm does 2.6 It's all chip dependant. I've heard people with .90nm parts not get beyond 2.4 it's hit and miss. It does help for temps though.

 

[Rand]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Yes, but they compare a 3200+ winchester(90nm) to a 3500+ newcastle(130nm) and the winchester still won, at stock, and OC'ed to the same speed !

They underclocked the 3500+ Winchester to 2GHz to compare at identical clockspeeds.

Each CPU was benched at 200 x 10 for default settings. This allowed us to be able to compare the performance of the 3500+ at the same settings as the 3200+.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Rand

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Yes, but they compare a 3200+ winchester(90nm) to a 3500+ newcastle(130nm) and the winchester still won, at stock, and OC'ed to the same speed !

They underclocked the 3500+ Winchester to 2GHz to compare at identical clockspeeds.

Each CPU was benched at 200 x 10 for default settings. This allowed us to be able to compare the performance of the 3500+ at the same settings as the 3200+.

Missed that comment, thanks.