• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What are the differences between process 0.13Micron and 90 nm?

The 130nm chips run a little hotter and draw more power than their 90nm counterparts. I have yet to see any conclusive benchmarks that prove a 90nm part outperforms an identidcally clocked 130nm part though.

Also, all 90nm parts are s939 only, I think. I might be mistaken though.
 
Originally posted by: Bateluer
The 130nm chips run a little hotter and draw more power than their 90nm counterparts. I have yet to see any conclusive benchmarks that prove a 90nm part outperforms an identidcally clocked 130nm part though.

Also, all 90nm parts are s939 only, I think. I might be mistaken though.
Click to expand...


Identically PR rated speeds of an 130nm sckt 754 versus a 90nm sckt 939 little or no improvement with a possible advantage for the skct 754...reason???? That the 3000+ sckt 754 is 2ghz and the sckt 939 90nm 3000+ is only 1.8ghz....

The main advantage of the new 90nm winchesters is the dual channel memory like the FX chips. In amd's mind that justified the pr rating increase. however it doesn't always oan out that way in some apps....



Identically clocked 2.0ghz sckt 754 3000+ versus a 2.0ghz sckt 939 which is a 3200+ chip with dual channel controller does beat the 130nm sckt 754 chip...If you haven't seen this then you haven't read too many reviews lately....

 
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Bateluer
The 130nm chips run a little hotter and draw more power than their 90nm counterparts. I have yet to see any conclusive benchmarks that prove a 90nm part outperforms an identidcally clocked 130nm part though.

Also, all 90nm parts are s939 only, I think. I might be mistaken though.
Click to expand...


Identically PR rated speeds of an 130nm sckt 754 versus a 90nm sckt 939 little or no improvement with a possible advantage for the skct 754...reason???? That the 3000+ sckt 754 is 2ghz and the sckt 939 90nm 3000+ is only 1.8ghz....

The main advantage of the new 90nm winchesters is the dual channel memory like the FX chips. In amd's mind that justified the pr rating increase. however it doesn't always oan out that way in some apps....



Identically clocked 2.0ghz sckt 754 3000+ versus a 2.0ghz sckt 939 which is a 3200+ chip with dual channel controller does beat the 130nm sckt 754 chip...If you haven't seen this then you haven't read too many reviews lately....
Click to expand...
Right, but that's not just comparing 130nm to 90nm... that's comparing 130nm/socket 754 to 90nm/socket 939. What he was saying is that he hasn't seen any conclusive evidence that a 512kb/130nm/socket 939 at 2.2ghz is any better/worse than a 512kb/90nm/socket 939 at 2.2ghz performance-wise.

I haven't either, but the fact that they run cooler and use less power is a good enough reason to say the 90nm chips are "better."
 
Hmm... I'll try to read reviews as much as I can before I make the decision for my next rig. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top