• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

65nm Brisbane Official Release

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Molester

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Location
Dallas, Tx
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/11375
http://www.techenclave.com/forums/amd-price-cuts-for-festive-season-82951.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36162
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5222
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061204232843.html
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/05/amd_intros_65nm_cpus/

Processor Speed L2 cache TDP Price
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz 2x512KB 65W $301
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.5GHz 2x512KB 65W $271
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz 2x512KB 65W $214
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 2.1GHz 2x512KB 65W $169

Yes, they use X.5 multipliers.

Seem mainly just a paper launch, unless your Dell.... we all saw this coming.
We're all on the look-out for reviews as well.
 
Last edited:
SeasonalEclipse said:
AMD is like intel with netburst now.. pushing their K8 series..


The k8 series that held the performance crown for how many years over intel? I dont blame them. They have to do anything they possibly can to hold off untill they pull out there new arch. Theyve squeezed just about everything they can out of this arch, were just waiting on k8l.
 
I really wish there wasn't 65w and 65nm. The two features having the same numerical value has thrown me off on more than one occassion. I mean, I actually have to open my eyes, pay attention, and look closely at the letter after the number to see what's what. This hasn't been the case in the past! Not that I remember. Couldn't it have been 64w or 66nm?

Okay, nevermind, I'm just a lazy sob.

65nm dual core is nice and all, but I'm curious to see how 65nm in quad core plays out. Especially with this new L3-cache idea.
 
SeasonalEclipse said:
AMD is like intel with netburst now.. pushing their K8 series..

The big difference is that AMD doesn't waste people's time as long. Netburst lasted for almost 7 years and sucked for a majority of it, getting hotter and hotter. K8 has lasted 4 years and kicked *** every day until Core2 came out. Thats a better service record. They also didn't fake a dual core chip by putting 2 cores (that have an average operating temperature that bests the sun) right next to eachother on the same silicon.

K8 also refers to s939, 940 and 754. So they aren't pushing K8 anymore, they're pushing the same cores is all.
 
Yeah some guy on xs claims to have one and posted an evil fake cpu-z screenie claiming to have gotten 4.5Ghz on air. It took me a minute to get over my "wtf, I have to get one now!" excitement and realise it was BS.
 
knightwolf6543 said:
none that i can find. should the prices of these chips be lower then the 90nm chips?
more cpu's per wafer = cheaper production.. so, should be
 
Back