AMD CPU Core?

[Leonidas]

i looked through AMD's site and i havent found anything pointing either way... but it would only make sense to give FX the 90nm architecture. being as it is marketed as overclockable and all, and it wouldnt look good of a 3500+(winchester) could overclock better than an FX costing twice as much, so using logic id say they are going 90nm on new FX's.

CORRECTION:

AMD will release FX on 90nm in first half of 2005 according to their roadmap. and with dual core in second half of 2005

 

[Apokalipse]

ok ill jump in the fire here ...yikkkkes...ouch ..
from the info i have the barton has the most head room on the market , next to any thing with the label mp..
hey dont jump me like a bunc of hungry dogs ok...
oc'ing on this thing ( 2500 barton ) is wild , and its stable like a rock . Have tryied the 2600xp , over heated fast! not sure about the 2400, and the 1800mp was also stable ,currently working on a 3200just to see what i can get it to do!

the Barton's are for the Athlon XP's, although you are right that they are the top core for its class of CPU

the Athlon 64's core's are:
clawhammer - the first ones, and I think some of the socket 939's use this core
newcastle - used in socket 939 only, and is newer than the clawhammer's
winchester - this is the 90nm core, it doesn't need as much power because it is smaller, so it runs cooler, and is more overclockable. also the performance is about 5% better than newcastles at the same frequency

 

[YanBooth]

Well, what about sledge hammer?

 

[YanBooth]

AMD will release FX on 90nm in first half of 2005 according to their roadmap. and with dual core in second half of 2005 [/B]

DUAL CORE?????? THIS SOUNDS SWEET, do ya have a link I could look at, thanx,
Yan