opteron vs 64 x2

I beleive the opteron has 1mb cache per core while the athlon only has 512KBper core. I may be wrong on this tho.
 
thats only right for that particular model of athlon 64. i think the 3800 would be the faster chip but only by a bit
 
so ill be using my computer for gaming. somewhere i read said that the opteron is better for gaming. also ive read the opteron even though its only only 1.8 it has been clocked to about 2.6 with air cooling.
 
the early 939 ones were pushed all the way to 3.0 Ghz before needing exotic cooling. i suppose the extra cache will benifit you if you can get it to at least the same clockspeed as the 3800
 
that would be fine for overclocking, i've seen that being run in a few systems that were being overclocked and it kept temps in check
 
ok so i read it. so im planning on gaming but that really didnt go into detail on the opteron with gaming. it though say that opteron is for servers and the x2 is for a desktop. does this mean opteron is not the one to get?
 
The opteron's major benenfit is that it can be used in a dual processor system but as a single CPU core the San Diego is a better and less costly choice (the FX 57 is a SanDiego). If you're going to go dual core get at least the X2 4200 just for it's clock multiplier of 11. It's clock multiplier can be lowered 10 or even 9 which is very useful in overclocking when stressing your memory and frontside bus.
 
i dont think im willing to spend 400 dollars on a cpu. though ive seen many places that the opteron 165 and 3800 x2 both have low votages. the opteron 165 i believe has a slightly lower voltage and can be clocked higher.
 
I beleive the opteron has 1mb cache per core while the athlon only has 512KBper core. I may be wrong on this tho.
You're correct but the big advantage is the extended bus support from the Opty :)

thats only right for that particular model of athlon 64. i think the 3800 would be the faster chip but only by a bit
They both 1.8GHz :)

so ill be using my computer for gaming. somewhere i read said that the opteron is better for gaming. also ive read the opteron even though its only only 1.8 it has been clocked to about 2.6 with air cooling.
That it can

Thats what i own. would that be good enough for overclocking
Its ok but you'll find it's effectiveness is dust-bound, the more dust it gets the significiantly worse the effectiveness is. It's a decent cooler, used to run those myself until i switched over to heatpiped coolers

ok so i read it. so im planning on gaming but that really didnt go into detail on the opteron with gaming. it though say that opteron is for servers and the x2 is for a desktop. does this mean opteron is not the one to get?
Id say it IS the one to get due to it's price point :)

The opteron's major benenfit is that it can be used in a dual processor system
Not the 165. Thats a 1-way chip.
 
1. My bad on the X2 being 1.8GHz, i keep thinking the X2-3800 is the dual core variant of the A64-3000 (which is 1.8Ghz) rather than the A64-3200 :)

2. The Opteron 165, the "1" means that it is 1-way meaning you dont use it in a SMP configuration :) It is a 1-way dual-core processor as compared to say the Opteron 870 which is an 8-way dualcore processor or a Opteron 244 which a two-way single core processor
 
Yes it seems that I was assuming that all Opteron's are smp ready. I also made the mistake of assuming that the A64-3800 runs at 1.8 Ghz for the same reasons that you did. 6402 reminded me that it was a Ghz chip. I've got to learn to stop assuming. LOL

For my taste I'd go with the X2 4200 or X2 4400 if I just have have the extra L2 for $100
 
For my taste I'd go with the X2 4200 or X2 4400 if I just have have the extra L2 for $100
$100 for 512K of L2 per core? that seems awefully high premium ... i wouldnt pay more than $30 premium for it myself
 
Stock, the X2 is slightly faster. But, if you plan on OCing, opteron would be the better choice.
 
Back
Top