90nm vs .13micron

Status
Not open for further replies.

xteam02001

In Runtime
Messages
296
i was looking at the new athlon 64's from amd on newegg and i noticed that there was a big difference in price of two of the same processors and then i noticed one of them was a 90nm chip. The cpu's were both 3500+ you probably know that the 90nm was a winchester core. i was wondering if ,other than overclocking, why these chips are better than the regular newcastle chips.
 
well the .09micron requires less voltage, thus producing less heat....which is basically what makes it good for overclocking.

Also I believe newcastle has a tendency to get hot compared to winchester core.
 
so you're saying that the winchester core chip has the same speed and power as the newcastle. the only difference is the heat production.
 
Correct, if you don't plan on overclocking and aren't worried about your CPU temperature while running stock speeds, the Newcastle core is the better choice, but the Winchester core is a much better core and will be far more energy efficent, achieve high clock speeds, and dissipate less heat all at the same time.

I think a 3500+ Winchester can overclock up to 2.6Ghz without any voltage tweaking.
 
If your not worried so much about OC-ing then go for the cheaper of the two. They are both awsome processors.
 
Well I can barely understand what 'MasterJason' is trying to say over there. You should really practice some typing skills there.

I don't know anything about the .09 being any better than the .13 performance wise. I would have to see some graphs to back that up. Smaller transistors, less voltage, and less heat do not = more performance.
 
I gotta back Nubius up here, unless the Newcastle is overheated like a baked potatoe, a stock Newcastle will perform exactly the same as it's Wichester counterpart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom