Alright, these are two Athlon 64 3500+s and I want to get one of them, but I dont know the difference except that one is more expensive. So, which of them is better and why? One says "Process: 0.13 Micron" and the other says "Process: 90 nanometer". I dont know what either of those mean, but I cant figure out why they'd be measured different or whatever. Well... thanks if you can help! http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-494&depa=0 http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-460&depa=0
Well, after much exploration, I've discovered that they are units of measurement. 0.13 microns is 130 nanometers... but I still dont know which is faster or better or anything. You'd think that would be somewhere on the internet.
different cores. As you can see one is newcastle while the other is unlisted. and one is 1.4v while the other is 1.5v
Yeah, I noticed that, but I dont know if the more expensive one is worth the $20 extra. Yunno, if its actually faster or anything...
Yeah, I dont know whats up with that. And I dont know what to look up to see which is better... darn! What sucks even more is that I'm all impatient 'cause I want to get a processor for my new system RIGHT NOW. I hate waiting but I'd rather wait and make sure I get the better of the two.
:good: hah hah... I just dont want to spend the extra money if the performace difference isnt worth it, or if one is more unstable but a newer technology so they sell it for more, yunno?
Woo hoo! I found out that the 90 nanometer one is a winchester core and is better for overclocking and has less heat issues! So... I kinda solved my own problem I guess, but maybe this'll help someone else with the same problem.
There is alot of difference, the AMD64 3500 with 130 nano is a newcastle and the AMD64 3500 with 090 nano is a winchester. Winchesters typically overclock alot better than the newcastles, however.. if you get a winchester that was manufactured before Week 41, it will most likely be a poor overclocker. The apparent worst weeks are: Week 31/35/37/39 Unfortunately the largest batches ordered were of Weeks 35 and 37, so you are most likely to recieve one of these. Basically the overclocking world has got upset over the poor overclocking abilities of these processors, people seem to put it down to the Weeks.. as most people who are having the worst overclocks.. are from the same weeks.. However in my opinion, although having a 35 or 37 Week processor may not overclock AS much, it is still possible to overclock significantly, if you do it correctly. Remember, you will need high quality memory, that is capable of reaching 2.8-2.9VDimm safely, preferably of a speed that is faster than what your processor requires.. ie: AMD64 3500 = DDR400 (PC3200), so get some PC3500-PC4400 (the higher the better). Also people do not seem to take into account that the LDT needs to be lowered. I will be posting tonight a guide on how to overclock a AMD64 939 system, as I have a Week 35 Winchester (3200+) and i have already overclocked it by 400Mhz, with stock cooler, and 512MB PC3200 memory.. stable I havn't seen anyone with a Week 35 clock higher than myself.. without instability, highest i've seen is 2250Mhz, (3200+ stock runs: 2000Mhz)
Winchesters have a much lower power consumption when idle unlike their P4 counterparts. I wouldn't overclock a chip like that much myself because I'm too afraid to kill it.
Usually, going to a lower micron means less heat, but that's not always the case. I know when AMD first came out with their Athlon XP Thoroughbred cores (T-bred 'A'), they didn't seem to be any real improvement of the Palimino core---which ran really hot.
Actually the Palomino was a real improvement over the thunderbird in terms of heat output. I think it reduced heat output by something like 20% over the thunderbird. But theres always room for improvement.
