What is the differencebetween the 65W AM2's and the regulars?

[Oddzball]

Is there much of a difference? Can one overclock more than the other?

[Booster]

From what I read the EE models don't have a better overclock than the regular older 89w versions. They are just able to function at a lower voltage.

 

BTW can you keep all these questions in your orginal thread about AMD or Conroe.

[ikjadoon]

Yeah...Aren't any better, mostly for OEMs and such because they use such low-quality PSUs. HTPC crowd likes them as well, gives them a chance to use passive, though I would only attempt passive with the 35W model of the X2 3800+.

 

65nm parts, Brisbane, will be 65W (Isn't that ironic?) standard and they should have better OC'ing....Sorry for off-topic.

 

~Ibrahim~

[Oddzball]

Auug, I know I know, try to keep all my questions centralized. Dont hate me, I just like things in neat small packages, which tends to mean when I have a question I make a new post. I will restrain myself from now on.

[JacKz]

Yeah don't get the 65W one unless your not going to OC and want it to be energy efficient. Get a regular one, they OC better and are cheaper too

[ikjadoon]

Spend the extra $10 and get the regular version. It might give you a boost when OC'ing... The 65W version is $10 cheaper. You need to spend MORE to get the 89W version.

 

~Ibrahim~

[Spunkmeyer6]

I totally disagree, I have two X2 3800's. One being the ADO low power version and they both overclock exactly the same with my hardware.

 

The opposite situation exists here in the UK, the low power versions are extremely rare and slightly more expensive. Same as we never got the X2 4000 with the 1 meg cache over here.

 

The only difference I had between the two was the 65w version got the same overclock with a lot less voltage. 2814 with 1.5 vcore as oppossed to 1.6 on the normal.

[Booster]

Have you tried to push your low power any further? I think thats the point of his question and most of the answers so far show that it won't clock any higher than the standard.

[Spunkmeyer6]

Yeah they both hit the same wall so I guess I got some other limiting factor, most likely ram.

 

With the prices the way they are just now I wont be trying another set anytime soon, just got the Geil before they went crazy. The OCZ are even poorer can only get to 2.6 with those, think they was an early set and was asking about getting the SPD reprogrammed on the OCZ forums a while back but wasn't getting anywhere. I've been away on family matters for a while so maybe try again.

[ikjadoon]

Now hold on. They perform similarly, but

 

Unfortunately, Energy Efficient cannot boast anything else besides the lowered thermal and electrical characteristics. They do not differ in architecture from the “standard” Athlon 64 and hence perform absolutely identically. As for their overclocking potential, which might be of specific interest to hardware enthusiasts, we have to upset you. Despite the expectations, Energy Efficient AMD CPUs cannot boast higher overclocking potential. They may even overclock worse than their “standard” analogues. Although their lowered power consumption allows you to raise the core voltage much higher, it doesn’t help to hit the extreme clock speeds.

 

Only reason I say spend an extra $10.

 

~Ibrahim~

[Guest DaddyD302]

Spend the extra $10 and get the regular version. It might give you a boost when OC'ing... The 65W version is $10 cheaper. You need to spend MORE to get the 89W version.

 

~Ibrahim~

 

Actually, they are more expensive, not cheaper. According to newegg, it's $20 more for the 65W version compare to the 89W for the X2 4600. The X2 4200 version is $6 more.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList....SubCategory=343

[ikjadoon]

Ah, so it changes with each processor. The X2 3800+ 89W version costs $169, the 65W version costs $159.

 

Looking at the pricing, on all the CPU's minus the 3800+, the 65W version is more.

 

~Ibrahim~