Would I notice difference in AthlonXW 6000+Windsor over 4800+Brisbane

[geepondy]

Bens Bargain says the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB is currently selling at Newegg for $74 with free shipping. As I won't be updating my whole system for quite some time, is it worth the money to make this CPU upgrade over my current Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Brisbane? In addition to a higher clock rate, I know the Windsor has 2 x 1MB cache vs 2 x512K for the Brisbane but realistically will I still see a difference?

 

[nerp]

I'd say it's worth it. Depends, though. Are you looking for an increase in performance in general or is this just an upgrade bug? do you game? Would the money be better spent towards a faster video card?

 

[HannibalX]

I wouldn't do it. Windsor CPUs are 90 nm and will use more power (125 watt).

Your Brisbane CPU is 65 nm and rated at 65w.

You would basically be going a generation back and only gain 500 Mhz, which may or may not perform better than your current CPU.

I am betting your Brisbane will hit 3.0GHz, most of them will.

 

[geepondy]

I ended up biting. Part of it was probably just an upgrade bug on my part. My video card is a GEforce 9600 GT so it isn't too bad. The processor is a new arrival and runs at 89W, not 125. Here is the Newegg link.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103233

 

[HannibalX]

Well, it's your money.

There are 65 nm Brisbane CPUs that run at 3.0GHz (the Athlon 64 X2 5800+).

The 6000+ Windsor may have a higher numeric model number but it is by no means the better CPU. The last Windsor to be launched was in February, 2007 and is still a 90 nm CPU.

 

[PhlashFoto]

Where's the $74 price?

 

[geepondy]

Newegg said new arrival. Maybe the difference is it now runs at 89W, not 125W?

Originally posted by: iFX
Well, it's your money.

There are 65 nm Brisbane CPUs that run at 3.0GHz (the Athlon 64 X2 5800+).

The 6000+ Windsor may have a higher numeric model number but it is by no means the better CPU. The last Windsor to be launched was in February, 2007 and is still a 90 nm CPU.

 

[geepondy]

Use coupon code AMD10610 (from Bens Bargains)

Originally posted by: ELopes580
Where's the $74 price?

 

[HannibalX]

They just mean it was newly added to their inventory (or more specifically re-added).

List of A64 CPUs.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

 

[Kraeoss]

thr frequency on that one is rated 3.1 GHz... well i hope it's great 4 u man

 

[angry hampster]

Just overclock the Brisbane. I had a 4850 running at 2.99GHz stable last year. Ran great.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: iFX

You would basically be going a generation back and only gain 500 Mhz, which may or may not perform better than your current CPU.

Not true

It will be the same generation, different manufacturing process


Apart from the MHz gain he also gets twice the L2 cache.

 

[edplayer]

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...finally-available.html

according to that post, the 89W version should have a supply voltage of 1.3V vs. 1.35V

also, check out that last line...

 

[PhlashFoto]

Originally posted by: iFX
They just mean it was newly added to their inventory (or more specifically re-added).

List of A64 CPUs.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

Are you sure on that?

For power consumption, the 65mn maybe a tad better and still, AMD (I could be wrong, if so some please correct me) defines power consumption based on "average" use, not constant or full load wattage.

 

[coolpurplefan]

The first post was about the older 6000+ with the 1MBx2 cache but the newer one if I remember correctly has 512k and is 3.1 GHz, not 3.0 GHz. And the new one apparently has a heatpipe cooler. I don't know if the old model had one as well. (It might because of the heat.)

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: edplayer

Originally posted by: iFX

You would basically be going a generation back and only gain 500 Mhz, which may or may not perform better than your current CPU.

Not true

It will be the same generation, different manufacturing process


Apart from the MHz gain he also gets twice the L2 cache.

I thought it was implied I was referring to the manufacturing process since both CPUs are in fact, K8.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: ELopes580

Originally posted by: iFX
They just mean it was newly added to their inventory (or more specifically re-added).

List of A64 CPUs.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

Are you sure on that?

For power consumption, the 65mn maybe a tad better and still, AMD (I could be wrong, if so some please correct me) defines power consumption based on "average" use, not constant or full load wattage.

Brisbane is the better CPU. It's smaller, uses less power, produces less heat and will overclock better. Therefore, 65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

I'm not even sure why this is an argument unless some of you are favoring the Windsor for nostalgia purposes. The Windsor core launched in May of 2006, why would anyone be "upgrading" to a 2.5 year old CPU when they already own a newer and better model CPU?

 

[geepondy]

Thanks for the links. I have been looking through them. I'm trying to find an article(s) stating CPU power consumptions with systems in idle and full load comparing my current CPU, the Brisbane 4800+ (stated 65W), the one I purchased the Windsor 6000+ (stated 89W) and the Windsor 6000+ (stated 125W). I found this article from Tom's but it appears to use the 125W version of the 6000+.
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...-power-cpu,1925-6.html

I would hope under full load, the 89W version I just purchased is considerably less power hungry then the apparent 125W used in the test setup. Also, in looking through this and other articles, if building a new system, why would anybody consider a Phenom over a current Intel processor, whether overclocking or not?

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: iFX

Brisbane is the better CPU. It's smaller, uses less power, produces less heat and will overclock better. Therefore, 65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

It uses less power.


Most threads that I have read say they overclock about the same. It has half the cache. It does LESS work, clock for clock. Also, his 4800+ uses a half multiplier so it won't even run the memory at 400MHz unless it is overclocked. The 6000+ does not use a half multiplier.

AND to top it all off, the Brisbane has longer L2 cache latency:

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...fight-back,1455-5.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=2893&p=3

So you really have to be nuts to think the Brisbane is better than the Windsor. Yes, it uses less power and if that were your only criteria for "best" cpu, it would win. But it would be more appropriate to call it the more power efficient cpu or something similar rather than the better cpu.

Just because it is newer doesn't mean it is better. You keep trying to tell us when it was made. Doesn't matter if it came out in 1983, it is better than the Brisbane.

 

[MrStryker]

Originally posted by: iFX
They just mean it was newly added to their inventory (or more specifically re-added).

List of A64 CPUs.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

Not true. I had two different Brisbanes, the 3600 and 5400 BE. They were nothing compared to my stock 6000+, which still obliterates the Brisbanes even with older fab. There's just something about Brisbanes that make them suck so much for gaming.

The 2MB Windsors, despite their power requirements, will always be better than the Brisbanes in terms of gaming. Trust me.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: edplayer

Originally posted by: iFX

Brisbane is the better CPU. It's smaller, uses less power, produces less heat and will overclock better. Therefore, 65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

It uses less power.


Most threads that I have read say they overclock about the same. It has half the cache. It does LESS work, clock for clock. Also, his 4800+ uses a half multiplier so it won't even run the memory at 400MHz unless it is overclocked. The 6000+ does not use a half multiplier.

AND to top it all off, the Brisbane has longer L2 cache latency:

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...fight-back,1455-5.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=2893&p=3

So you really have to be nuts to think the Brisbane is better than the Windsor. Yes, it uses less power and if that were your only criteria for "best" cpu, it would win. But it would be more appropriate to call it the more power efficient cpu or something similar rather than the better cpu.

Just because it is newer doesn't mean it is better. You keep trying to tell us when it was made. Doesn't matter if it came out in 1983, it is better than the Brisbane.

It simply isn't better, if it were better AMD would still be making it - they aren't.

Like I said it's the OPs money to waste and you seem intent on helping him to waste it.

I won't argue with you any more because you seem to have your mind made up.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: MrStryker

Originally posted by: iFX
They just mean it was newly added to their inventory (or more specifically re-added).

List of A64 CPUs.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

Not true. I had two different Brisbanes, the 3600 and 5400 BE. They were nothing compared to my stock 6000+, which still obliterates the Brisbanes even with older fab. There's just something about Brisbanes that make them suck so much for gaming.

The 2MB Windsors, despite their power requirements, will always be better than the Brisbanes in terms of gaming. Trust me.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor

This isn't a hard concept. If the Windsor were so great, AMD would still be making it.

You are comparing a 3600 to a 6000? The clock speed difference is too large. Your argument is flawed.

I'm done with this thread. You guys are delusional. There is a word for your attitudes - fanboy.

 

[cubeless]

things like die size, marketing lower power, etc... add in to the equation why a mfg goes to a different chip... ultimate performance sometimes takes a back seat...

i went from a 4800 to a 6000 (both windsor, was able to get from 2.6 to 3.2 on a ecs budget board) and it made a huge difference in performance... the bigger cache seems to be a big help in rts games... it was certainly worth the $40 net after selling the 4800... but it is a hottie...

 

[MrStryker]

Originally posted by: iFX

Originally posted by: MrStryker

Originally posted by: iFX
They just mean it was newly added to their inventory (or more specifically re-added).

List of A64 CPUs.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

Not true. I had two different Brisbanes, the 3600 and 5400 BE. They were nothing compared to my stock 6000+, which still obliterates the Brisbanes even with older fab. There's just something about Brisbanes that make them suck so much for gaming.

The 2MB Windsors, despite their power requirements, will always be better than the Brisbanes in terms of gaming. Trust me.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor

This isn't a hard concept. If the Windsor were so great, AMD would still be making it.

You are comparing a 3600 to a 6000? The clock speed difference is too large. Your argument is flawed.

I'm done with this thread. You guys are delusional. There is a word for your attitudes - fanboy.

I apologize that I didn't mention that the 3600+ was clocked at 3.0 GHz, and the 5400+ was at 3.2GHz. 10x320 but the point is it doesn't matter if the 6000+ is using older tech, it's still faster than the Brisbanes. I've owned two of them - and you're calling me a fanboy? Please, don't be ridiculous. You've got some nerve to say that we're delusional.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: iFX

Originally posted by: MrStryker

Originally posted by: iFX
They just mean it was newly added to their inventory (or more specifically re-added).

List of A64 CPUs.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor.

Not true. I had two different Brisbanes, the 3600 and 5400 BE. They were nothing compared to my stock 6000+, which still obliterates the Brisbanes even with older fab. There's just something about Brisbanes that make them suck so much for gaming.

The 2MB Windsors, despite their power requirements, will always be better than the Brisbanes in terms of gaming. Trust me.

65 nm Brisbane > 90 nm Windsor

This isn't a hard concept. If the Windsor were so great, AMD would still be making it.

You are comparing a 3600 to a 6000? The clock speed difference is too large. Your argument is flawed.

I'm done with this thread. You guys are delusional. There is a word for your attitudes - fanboy.

65nm Brisbane > 90nm Windsor................ in what way? Performance? Production cost? Power consumption? In some ways Brisbane is better, in other ways Windsor is superior. That is what you don't understand.

Why is Brisbane replacing Windsor? Because it is cheaper to produce and has lower power consumption. These are the obvious benefits of moving to a 65nm process. Lower cost for AMD means nothing to the end user, power consumption does but for most people it is not the main thing.

In terms of the chip itself Windsor is superior; it has 1MB of L2 per core versus 512KB per core on Brisbane, and the L2 latency is lower. In general, it also overclocks better - yes, AMD's 65nm process sucks that much that the 90nm chips still OC better.

For the end user, Windsor is faster per clock and overclocks better, consuming slightly more power than Brisbane. For most end users, Windsor is a better CPU. For AMD, Brisbane at 126mm^2 on 300mm wafers is a lot better than producing 230mm^2 Windsors on 200mm wafers (not exactly sure where these Windsors are manufactured anymore, at Fab 30 it was 200mm). That is why you see the transition. Windsor was a high-end core and designed as such, Brisbane was designed to be the cheap little core that allowed AMD to compete on price until K10 saved the day.... only the full K10 lineup never showed up.