Eben King wrote:
> Sorry, sorry. :-) Another question: In shopping for CPUs, I see
> some where the model name includes "(65W)" and other, seemingly
> identical ones, where it doesn't. Case in point:
>
> Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (65W)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103749
>
> Athlon 64 X2 4600+
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103751
>
> You pay $4 extra for the "(65W)" variant. They have the same cache
> sizes (L1=128K+128K, L2=2*512K). I see on other sites that the
> non-65W version has a power consumption of 89W, so my WAG is that the
> 65W version is lower power and therefore slower?
When the dies are cut out of the wafer and tested, each is rated on its
heat dissipation, power use, any failed area of the chip that can be
routed around or disabled altogether and sold as a lower end unit (think
Sempron), etc.
To this end, the chips that are rated lower power are really just the
higher quality chips. As such, you don't need to run them at a higher
power level to get the electrons to flow through malformed/inadequate
pathways, or whatever other defects may have appeared during manufacture.
Is it worth the $4 extra? If you want to overclock, hells yes. If you
want a lower power more efficient machine like a laptop or some
idle-most-of-the-time home server, then sure. Heck, for $4, the piece of
mind knowing that chip passed more strenuous tests than the chip that
was $4 cheaper is well worth it to me.
That's my take on it anyway.
- Ian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:08:46 EDT