• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Athlon X2 65nm review

Man of Honour
Joined
29 Jun 2003
Posts
34,582
Location
Wiltshire
Just spotted a review by X-bit labs on the updated Athlon X2 range, which are now 65nm instead of 90nm. You'd think it would be a touch quicker and a better OCer but it seems to make no difference apart from being lower wattage/cooler running. It will basically just be cheaper for AMD to produce, so maybe cheaper to compete against the faster Core 2 Duo.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-brisbane.html

The new 65nm Brisbane core can’t provoke a revolution on the CPU market. From an ordinary user’s point of view, the processors based on the new core differ but little from their predecessors. The new core doesn’t feature any improvements on the micro-architecture level and its frequency potential doesn’t differ much from that of the older Windsor core.

So, it is AMD itself that will profit most from the Brisbane. With the smaller CPU die area and larger semiconductor wafers, the cost of dual-core CPUs is now reduced whereas the introduction of fractional frequency multipliers allows to shape up a more flexible CPU series. Having mastered the 65nm tech process prior to launching its CPUs with the improved K8L micro-architecture, AMD has got a chance to make the manufacturing process polished off and ready for the moment the company’s fate will be decided.

As for consumer properties of the new CPUs, the Brisbane core does offer something positive. First of all, the 65nm CPUs have become more economical (if you don’t compare them with the older models from the Energy Efficient series) – all the new CPU models on the Brisbane core will fit within a TDP of 65W. Second, the new CPUs may be somewhat better to deal with for an overclocker.

But is this enough to make the new CPUs appealing in the eyes of the rapidly dispersing crowd of AMD fans? We guess, not. Especially as the Brisbane’s drawback – it works slower than the previous core with data in memory– may outweigh the good points mentioned.
 
El Jimben said:
Is there any concrete evidence which suggests that they will "re-release" the 939 chips but as 65nm? :confused:

was just wondering that myself i just cant believe how crap amd has treated its 939 users :( by totally cutting them of
 
El Jimben said:
Is there any concrete evidence which suggests that they will "re-release" the 939 chips but as 65nm? :confused:

I would be extremely surprised if they re-released S939 parts on 65nm, for the simple reason that they would need to re-engineer the S939 90nm cores for the new die size.

If they do make any more S939 chips it'll be using existing technology.

Jokester
 
El Jimben said:
Is there any concrete evidence which suggests that they will "re-release" the 939 chips but as 65nm? :confused:

Why would they release these for 939? It's a dead socket, that's just the way it goes. The first 65nm chips seem to be pretty damn useless anyway, I'd rather go back to a filth ridden Newcastle than the current Brisbane chips...
 
steveo said:
was just wondering that myself i just cant believe how crap amd has treated its 939 users :( by totally cutting them of


are you bonkers? they gave us opterons on 939 when they didnt have to, they gave us venice and sandiego cores that clocked to 70% above there stock values. and maintained the same platform for 3 and a half years! the problem with people like yourself is you expect to be able to buy one thing and have it last forever...
 
pegasus1 said:
AGP has yet to be fully killed off, If there is a profitable market then people will produce the goods.
Exactly! I appreciate that the AMD roadmap will now follow the path of the AM2 socket but if there's still demand for 939, why kill it off? Especially if the 65nm process means they can make more chips from a wafer.
 
Back
Top Bottom