ThePunkGeek said:
what is the real difference between having a 2200 tbred and overclocking an xp pal to 2200?
next to the .13 micron witch i have no clue what this even means lol someone wanna let me in why it is so "good"
It isn't great. The Tbred is just a Die Shrunk XP. The problem is that it's signifigantly hotter. Here is a quoe from Ed's Article about it:
"The Obvious: Heat
The obvious problem is that this is one hellaciously hot chip, which must be a first after a die shrink.
Now how can that be?
When you pump 15% less electricity into a chip that's 40% smaller, the chip gets hotter.
Let's take the typical thermal power of a 2100+ Palomino vs that of a 2100+ Thoroughbred.
Palomino
64.3 watts/128 sq. mm = .502 watts per square millimeter
Thoroughbred
56.4 watts/80 sq. mm = .705 watts per square millimeter
40% more heat to be dissipated per square millimeter.
Here's the real cringer:
Thunderbird 1400
64.7 watts/120 sq. mm = .539 watts per square millimeter
This brings us at least right back to the Thunderbird days in typical overclocking situations, if not worse. "
So you really should stick with an XP until the Barton arrives, it's going to have the Tbred die shrink, as well as 512k L2 cache, which should increase the die size, thus, making it run cooler. It's also supposed to have some of the Hammers optimisations, which is why the PR is 600+ higher than with the XP's and Tbred's. I hope this helped.