AMD 6000+ or

[Emlyn_Dewar]

Also a thing to note is that the AMD Tri Cores are Quad Core CPU's with a dead core...so decide whether or not you want to buy an effectively dud product

Ridiculous thing to say... They are not a dud product, they are repurposed.
It doesn't work any less than it would if they were intentional tri cores.

 

[Tetras]

the same is true of a variety of other speed grades. the newer 65nm cores carry less cache and so are run faster at a given speed grade

There can be a rather large difference in power consumption too, the old 90nm Windsors leak power like a sieve at high frequencies.

 

[chaotic_uk]

There can be a rather large difference in power consumption too, the old 90nm Windsors leak power like a sieve at high frequencies.

proof ?

 

[helmutcheese]

DP

 

[helmutcheese]

It makes perfect financial sense. Fab plants need to be kept busy, like any factory. They cost almost the same lying idle as they do in full production. If AMD has the capacity to make, say, 1 million quad-core dies each month but only has orders for 500,000 of them what do they do? They can either limit production to 500,000 dies or start offering chips with cores shut off at cheaper prices in the hope of selling the excess production to people who are on a budget and won't pay £120 for a quad but will pay £80 for a tri. It doesn't take many orders before that approach generates more money than limiting production.

Selling 'de-specced' products is standard procedure in the computer industry and has been for decades.

AMD and Intel both do it. ATI and NVidia do it. Hard drive manufacturers do it (ie, these days platter density means many '500GB' drives are really 640MB ones with different firmware).

No it does not, the Disabled cores are duffers, you never down any reading on topic ?

 

[Tetras]

proof ?

AMDs own TDPs for a start.

Numbers (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-overclocker,1708-7.html):
AMD X2 5000+ (Brisbane G2 65nm) @ 3.1 Ghz: 75.16 Watts
AMD X2 5000+ (Brisbane G2 65nm) @ 2.6 Ghz: 67 Watts
AMD X2 5000+ (Brisbane G1 65nm) @ 2.6 Ghz: 71.76 Watts

AMD X2 6400+ (Windsor F3 90nm) @ 3.5 Ghz: 157.55 Watts
AMD X2 6400+ (Windsor F3 90nm) @ 3.2 Ghz: 123.76 Watts

 

[chaotic_uk]

the x2 6400+ 90 nm will use more than the rated 125w if overclocked , but is not the x2 6000+ 3.1 ghz 65 nm not 89w ? . if so the above post proves nothing tbh , i bet it will use more than the 89w if overclocked like any cpu . also the above 5000 brisbane is rated 65w so why does it say 67w , is this from amd ?

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

No it does not, the Disabled cores are duffers, you never down any reading on topic ?

But with the "duff" core disabled, the product is no longer defective.
I've never understood the hatred of AMD tri cores...

 

[Tetras]

the x2 6400+ 90 nm will use more than the rated 125w if overclocked , but is not the x2 6000+ 3.1 ghz 65 nm not 89w ? . if so the above post proves nothing tbh , i bet it will use more than the 89w if overclocked like any cpu . also the above 5000 brisbane is rated 65w so why does it say 67w , is this from amd ?

What are you on about?

I said the Windsors use a lot of power at high frequencies, which they do! At 3.2 Ghz the 6400+ is using 123.76 Watts from toms figures and overclocked 300 mhz to 3.5 it is gobbling up 157.55. The 90nm silicon is near the limit at 3.0 Ghz tbh and above this loses operating efficiency at a ridiculous rate.

The brisbane cores on the other hand are quite happy around 3 Ghz, at 3.1 the latest revision (G2) is using 75.16 to the Windsor at 3.2 using 123.76, that is a huge difference.

Unfortunately Toms didn't clock the Brisbanes very high so we can't see whether the power efficiency also sky-rockets like Windsor at some point but I'm confident it will be a lot higher than the Windsor CPUs are.

At lower frequencies the difference isn't so huge, infact some of the Windsors were better than the early 65nm Brisbanes but the process has been refined a fair bit since then.

You also have to keep in mind some mobos (even newer ones) weren't designed for high wattage CPUs and will actually pop with them! (http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01/28/msi_no_longer_supports_125w_cpus_in_the_k9a2_cf/1).

I'd always pick a Brisbane CPU nowadays from that perspective, performance per clock is lower but they are easier to handle, the unlocked multi 5400+ Black (if it ever hits market here) should be very interesting.

I don't know what or why you are trying to argue this, did you purchase a Windsor and are trying to justify it? The figures speak for themselves and most who remember when those CPUs were released know that AMD didn't have an easy time pushing them up to and beyond 3 Ghz, the 90nm silicon doesn't react to it well.