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

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
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.

Good Post Extelleron

iFX did claim it was a smaller die size which it is. But that is of no benefit to the user and only benefits AMD. Its not like people say:

What size is your room?

10' x 10'

You can't fit a Windsor in there. And you need at least 3 people to carry it!

The die size is public info so it is possible for there to be more usable die per wafer. AMD doesn't disclose yields but I assume their process is tuned for maximum yield. It is clear that they were not attempting to get maximum performance with the Brisbane.

iFX chose to go out like a baby instead of admitting he was wrong. This thread has the pertinent info for someone to decide if this claimed 89W Windsor is a good upgrade. Affordability is unique to each individual so its up to them to decide if its worth the cost.

Originally posted by: iFX

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

Yes, you got me. I am a fanboy who finally upgraded his Barton to an E7200.

 

[coolpurplefan]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, that's interesting. Newegg now has the 6000+ at 3.0 GHz & 2 MB cache and 6000+ at 3.1 GHz & 1 MB cache at excatly the same price ($92 currently). If you're saying the one with 2 MB cache is much better than the one with 1 MB cache even if it's 100 MHz "faster" then I guess I would choose the 3.0 GHz & 2 MB.

EDIT: Would the 512k cache per core be the reason why it seems like the lower half my screen is refreshing faster than the top half when playing UT3? I have a 5400+ and that just seems weird to me. Although it may be the HD 4670 and the immature drivers. (Only one driver exists now for that card.)

 

[edplayer]

Don't think the L2 cache has anything to do with your screen refresh problems.

the 2MB L2 3000+ is $84 currently and you can get an additional $10 off with coupon code "AMD10610" (no quotation marks)

 

[geepondy]

You know I still can't find any articles discussing real life power consumption of the 6000+ 89W versus 125W. I would have thought that when the 89W version came out, this would have sparked some interest in this matter.

 

[ELopes580]

I do have a 125watt in a small Shuttle box and I'm picking up this "new" 89watt model as well. I have a Kill-a-Watt meter I can do some comparison testing. I just am not sure when I will get to do it. I will definately post back results once I get them.

 

[coldpower27]

It's actually very interesting, I did a very similar upgrade recently but on the Intel side rather then AMD.

I went from a E4300 @ 2.4GHZ/1.06 to a E8400 @ Stock. Quite a nice boost. The extra cache does help.

 

[coolpurplefan]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
It's actually very interesting, I did a very similar upgrade recently but on the Intel side rather then AMD.

I went from a E4300 @ 2.4GHZ/1.06 to a E8400 @ Stock. Quite a nice boost. The extra cache does help.

Uh, I just did a search and it shows the E8400 at 3.0 GHz. How does that compare to another CPU at 2.4 GHz?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan

Originally posted by: coldpower27
It's actually very interesting, I did a very similar upgrade recently but on the Intel side rather then AMD.

I went from a E4300 @ 2.4GHZ/1.06 to a E8400 @ Stock. Quite a nice boost. The extra cache does help.

Uh, I just did a search and it shows the E8400 at 3.0 GHz. How does that compare to another CPU at 2.4 GHz?

The clockspeed helps too.

 

[geepondy]

I received and installed my 89W 6000+. The good news is that with the kilowatt meter, it doesn't suck much more power then the 65W 4800+. Maybe 5 watts or so more at idle and 10 watts or so when running a bunch of applications at once, specifically winrar. The bad news is at least in day to day activities I cannot detect any speed increase over the 4800+. What has given me the biggest speed increase recently in day to day activities, believe it or not was installing Norton Internet Security 2009. It is the lightest IS program I have used in years and files and programs open in a snap compared to my previous Security program. Never thought I would say that about a Symantec product.

 

[tj111]

Sorry for bumping the topic. But I'm currently debating rather I should upgrade my 4800 x2 to 6000 or a x4 cpu. Since the company where I got my cpu from is offering some decent trade in deals. Should I bother with the 6000? or should I just jump to the x4 cpus instead? I use my computer mainly for graphic stuff.

 

[geepondy]

I suppose in CPU intensive applications such as rendering video or uncompressing a series of RAR files, it might be slightly faster but I don't notice much of a difference in day to day activities. I think doing something like getting a Raptor hard drive probably would have made a more noticeable difference. Not sure about the X4 cpus.

 

[faxon]

Originally posted by: tj111
Sorry for bumping the topic. But I'm currently debating rather I should upgrade my 4800 x2 to 6000 or a x4 cpu. Since the company where I got my cpu from is offering some decent trade in deals. Should I bother with the 6000? or should I just jump to the x4 cpus instead? I use my computer mainly for graphic stuff.

get an x4. the phenoms are significantly better performers all around than the x2s. dont touch the x3 phenoms though, they are pretty trashy

 

[tj111]

Thanks for the reply. Here's my MB model: M2A-VM HDMI and the list of supported CPU.

http://support.asus.com/cpusup...us&model=M2A-VM%20HDMI

I was thinking about either the 6000x2 or the x4 9650. With what Faxon suggested perhaps I should go with the 9650?

Thanks

PS. I'll start a new thread as it will go off topic.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Have you tried overclocking your x2 4800+...? Unless an application is really well-optimized for taking advantage of quad core, I don't think there are too many situations where a 2.3 or 2.4 Ghz Phenom will significantly outperform an X2 that's running close to 3 Ghz. And, in some cases, the X2 will outperform the Phenom.

 

[tj111]

I don't overclock my CPU, as I don't know how. hehee

I have created my own thread here.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2249295&enterthread=y