Originally Posted by PR1M3R
I totally disagree. It is well known that the brisbanes O.C. much better than the windsor core chips. I actually own one of each and the 5-10% performance difference is also untrue. I O.C.'d my 3600 brisbane to match my x2 4600 and benched both in the same rig. At the same clock speeds the 3600 BRISBANE was actually slightly faster in about half of the benchmarks and almost dead even on the other half.
I did a little more research to see if PR1M3R was correct, and here's what I turned up. Nearly every review comparing overclocked 65nm chips to overclocked 90nm chips agrees that the 65nm chip overclocks better. It would appear that the lower temperatures and voltages associated with the 65nm architecture does in fact give more headroom for a higher overclock (by about 100-200 MHz, which is significant). Unfortunately the only review I found in which the equivalent 90nm chip overclocked better was the first review I read, so sorry for misleading you in that respect. Here's that article, http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/649/
it was written when the Brisbane first came out, and the voltages on the Brisbanes were around 1.3-1.35 volts, hence they overclocked about the same as the Windsor (or in this article, slightly worse). They have since lowered the voltage to about 1.25 volts, making them more overclock-friendly. But as you said, you're not overclocking this processor, so the better overclocking potential of the 65nm chip doesn't matter at all to you.
As for PR1M3R's other complaints, I'm afraid he's wrong. The 90nm chip does consistently outperform the 65nm chip at stock settings, although it's by an almost insignificant margin. I didn't follow his logic comparing his overclocked Brisbane to a stock Windsor, but I did find some scientific tests comparing 65nm Brisbane X2 5000+ to 90nm Windsor X2 5000+. At stock settings, the Windsor processor outperforms the Brisbane by 0-5% in most tests, and as high as 14% in select tests. Honestly though, the two are basically neck and neck. Here are my sources, you can read up on the differences if you'd like. The only charts that show the Brisbane as superior to the Windsor are the ones comparing power consumption, or performance/power unit. Obviously the 65 Watt processor will win here. But power aside, the Windsor slightly edges out the Brisbane in performance both in games and encoding.http://www.hothardware.com/articles/..._BrisbaneCore/http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2889&p=1
And possibly the most important article to read, as it contains information directly from AMD about why the Brisbane performs slightly worse than the Windsor (higher latencies), go here:http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2893&p=3
In conclusion, since you do not want to overclock, and the because the performance margin between the Windsor and Brisbane is for the most part, insignificant, choose which ever one is cheaper