Athlon versus Opteron

[DasFox]

I'm looking to get either a Athlon 64 3700+ or a Opteron 146. Personally for me what I've learned in the past the Opterons where designed more for the server, workstations in mind and the Athlons for the consumer market, but beyond this I don't really know the SPECs differences.

I was told that a Opteron would also make a better overclocker then the Athlon 3700.

Any information, anyone can share would be appreciated.

ALOHA

 

[Corporate Thug]

http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/27340

lots of details there.

The opteron on average will likely clock higher that the 3700+

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/27340

lots of details there.

The opteron on average will likely clock higher that the 3700+

Well one other thing I forgot, my memory is unbuffered: (OCZ EL DDR PC-3200 Dual Channel Platinum)

I have the 2GB dual channel kit (2x 1024)

http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/m...z_el_ddr_pc_3200_dual_channel_platinum

Can I use this type of memory with the Opteron 146?

THANKS

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: DasFox

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/27340

lots of details there.

The opteron on average will likely clock higher that the 3700+

Well one other thing I forgot, my memory is unbuffered: (OCZ EL DDR PC-3200 Dual Channel Platinum)

I have the 2GB dual channel kit (2x 1024)

http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/m...z_el_ddr_pc_3200_dual_channel_platinum

Can I use this type of memory with the Opteron 146?

THANKS

yes, you can use it. s939 Opertons use unbuffered memory just like the Athlon

 

[akshayt]

At stock,3700 SD should be better but Opty may be better after overclocking.

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: akshayt
At stock,3700 SD should be better but Opty may be better after overclocking.

Yes, SD has exactly same cache and 200mhz faster (2.2 vs 2.0 on 146). I have opty tho and it works just fine even at stock speed. I'm quite happy. If you can get any of those cheap, go for it You know what, since you have quality RAM (unlike me), go for the opty, it should oc better

 

[DasFox]

Yeah everyone says the Opterons OC better, so I'm going to snag a 146, now if I can find a E6.

THANKS

 

[jjmIII]

Why not x2 ?? The 3800+'s are going 2.5 - 2.7 pretty easily!

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: jjmIII
Why not x2 ?? The 3800+'s are going 2.5 - 2.7 pretty easily!

opterons = server grade chips, so they clock a bit higher. also have 2x1MB cache, unlike the X2s (3800, 4200, 4600).

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman

Originally posted by: jjmIII
Why not x2 ?? The 3800+'s are going 2.5 - 2.7 pretty easily!

opterons = server grade chips, so they clock a bit higher. also have 2x1MB cache, unlike the X2s (3800, 4200, 4600).

We know that.

What jjimIII was asking is why not get a dual core CPU.

I don't know US pricing, but i bet the Opteron 146 isn't much less than the X2 3800+, which will still OC well, & will be dual core.

 

[Munky]

If he doesnt need dual core, then why should he get it? I know dual cores is like the latest cool thing to have around here, but there are some instances, like gaming, where dual core offers no benefit.

 

[Kakumba]

dual core can benefit gamers, if they happen to have stuff running in the background, like I do. if you only have the game running, then you wont notive a difference at all though.... so if the price difference is small, you may as well do dual core.

 

[DasFox]

I just sold a X2 3800. Dual core isn't that great at the moment for gaming. This is a 100% ONLY gaming box, nothing else!

Dual core for a hardcore gamers only box is a waste.

I don't run anything in the background when I game, except the AV that is all.

If you'll notice in my sig below I have two boxes.

ALOHA

P.S. I think the Opteron 146 overclocked is the way to go at the moment for gaming.

 

[Ava1anche]

Originally posted by: DasFox
I just sold a X2 3800. Dual core isn't that great at the moment for gaming. This is a 100% ONLY gaming box, nothing else!

Dual core for a hardcore gamers only box is a waste.

I don't run anything in the background when I game, except the AV that is all.

If you'll notice in my sig below I have two boxes.

ALOHA

P.S. I think the Opteron 146 overclocked is the way to go at the moment for gaming.

I completely disagree!!! So tell me how laggy do you get when AV is trying to scan in the background when are playing online games. Or do you disable that before you play. Every game that I have tried works great with my Dual Core. Going Dual Core is the best thing I have did. Friday I was download Windows Vista RC1 and playing COD2 and my ping was sitting at 64, Can your single core do that? Also gaming rig or not every Computer has programs running in the back ground unless you end task to all of them which is a waste of time.

 

[Dribble]

If you had a single core box then I can see just to game upgrading to dual core doesn't help much today (well other then the multi-threaded graphics drivers and the odd game that's dual core friendly - quake 4), but buying a new single core cpu with all these dual core friendly games just around the corner?

Also what does it really buy you. After o/c assume the opteron is 10% faster then a X2 3800, will you really notice that in a game? Unlikely as the game would first need to be cpu bound not graphics bound and even then you'll only get a few fps. Yet in 3 months when the latest greatest dual core friendly game comes out and using both cores the X2 3800 is 50% faster...you will notice that.

Sure if the X2's cost a fortune then maybe consider a single core, but these days they are cheap.

 

[Makaveli]

While I agree with both of the suggestions to look at a dualcore cpu. The examples given't weren't very good. Downloading Vista and playing a game can be done on a single core cpu, I was doing it yesterday. Your Internet connection will have a greater effect on your ping, than cpu load.

IE u have a 6mbps connection with 800kbps up.

if your downloading a file, at say 300kb/sec with no uploads going u can easily do this and game on the same connection.

If u are maxing out your upload with a file transfer on msn, and downloading files aswell as playing a game. You are using all of your bandwidth having a dual core processor won't fix your pings in game.

Secondly nobody runs a virus scan while gaming.

 

[Mucker]

This is for you DasFaux: http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant...ct_Code=120333&Category_Code=AMDOP9391

The 165 is $149.......both good deals for existing 939 users.....

 

[Ava1anche]

Originally posted by: Makaveli
While I agree with both of the suggestions to look at a dualcore cpu. The examples given't weren't very good. Downloading Vista and playing a game can be done on a single core cpu, I was doing it yesterday. Your Internet connection will have a greater effect on your ping, than cpu load.

IE u have a 6mbps connection with 800kbps up.

if your downloading a file, at say 300kb/sec with no uploads going u can easily do this and game on the same connection.

If u are maxing out your upload with a file transfer on msn, and downloading files aswell as playing a game. You are using all of your bandwidth having a dual core processor won't fix your pings in game.

Secondly nobody runs a virus scan while gaming.

I see your point about the Downloading...


I run a virus scan during gaming every week.

 

[Ava1anche]

Sorry looks like a double post..

 

[DasFox]

I would like to see information on the Web that talks about the future of dual core gaming, and when it's coming.

Just to let you guys know I bought a X2 3800 back in Dec. 2005 when dual cores hit the scene around that time, and since that time there has not been any big changes up to it, so I don't think we are going to see anything soon, especially in 3 months.

When I ran dual core most of my games didn't run 100% smooth, there was always some gaming stutter with the dual cores.

And for only using the box for gaming I disagree 100% that shutting down all the serives you don't need a waste, it does give a performance advantage.

When I kill XP to the bone and only have a AV running at startup I can get XP to run at 80-90MB of ram, now that's not a waste. That's called ---> PERFORMANCE

ALOHA

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: munky
If he doesnt need dual core, then why should he get it? I know dual cores is like the latest cool thing to have around here, but there are some instances, like gaming, where dual core offers no benefit.

:roll: Which is why Quake 4 and CoD already benefit from dual cores and every major game in development currently will also most likely benefit from dual cores.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/page3.asp

"The numbers shrink as you move to 1280x1024 with 4x anti-aliasing, but that?s to be expected when graphics horsepower starts becoming the scarce resource. Even still, both dual-core chips pick up close to 40 percent higher frame rates. Hyper-Threading gives the Pentium 4 540 an extra 20 percent boost.

The party starts dwindling at 1600x1200. Consider that?s with 6xAA and 16xAF, though! Intel?s Pentium Extreme Edition is still able to snag nearly nine percent higher frame rates, too."

This was on a 3.2Ghz Pentium D machine with an X1800XT. Buy dual core now and then upgrade the graphics card in a year or two (or now for instant gratification) and you'll see even more benefit from dual core.

 

[Ava1anche]

Originally posted by: DasFox
I would like to see information on the Web that talks about the future of dual core gaming, and when it's coming.

Just to let you guys know I bought a X2 3800 back in Dec. 2005 when dual cores hit the scene around that time, and since that time there has not been any big changes up to it, so I don't think we are going to see anything soon, especially in 3 months.

When I ran dual core most of my games didn't run 100% smooth, there was always some gaming stutter with the dual cores.

And for only using the box for gaming I disagree 100% that shutting down all the serives you don't need a waste, it does give a performance advantage.

When I kill XP to the bone and only have a AV running at startup I can get XP to run at 80-90MB of ram, now that's not a waste. That's called ---> PERFORMANCE

ALOHA

I can understand if you are running 512 of ram that closing extra process to give an extra 80-90mb worth wild... But running 2gb of there is no difference in gaming since your games does not use the full ram. Unless you can tell a game that requires more than 2gb? Maybe I am wrong, I mean lets say the game use 1gb xp use 256= 700+ leftover... The point I meant to have made is the there is no reason to have to shut them done.. "Waste of time" But maybe I am wrong...

 

[Kakumba]

If you were getting stuttering with AMD dual cores, that sounds like a timing issue. these days there is the AMD DC optimizer, and there were also patches/ hotfixes quite a long time ago.... so that would have fixed that.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Ava1anche

Originally posted by: Makaveli
While I agree with both of the suggestions to look at a dualcore cpu. The examples given't weren't very good. Downloading Vista and playing a game can be done on a single core cpu, I was doing it yesterday. Your Internet connection will have a greater effect on your ping, than cpu load.

IE u have a 6mbps connection with 800kbps up.

if your downloading a file, at say 300kb/sec with no uploads going u can easily do this and game on the same connection.

If u are maxing out your upload with a file transfer on msn, and downloading files aswell as playing a game. You are using all of your bandwidth having a dual core processor won't fix your pings in game.

Secondly nobody runs a virus scan while gaming.

I see your point about the Downloading...


I run a virus scan during gaming every week.

And why would you want to do that? Do you also have a dual core hard disk, that doesnt slow down when multiple apps try to read and write to is simultaneously? I have a dual core cpu, and aside from image processing and video encoding apps I've seen absolutely no improvement going from single cores. And I dont do any intentionally insane multitasking while gaming because even with a billion cores you still have other system components with limited resources.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: munky
If he doesnt need dual core, then why should he get it? I know dual cores is like the latest cool thing to have around here, but there are some instances, like gaming, where dual core offers no benefit.

:roll: Which is why Quake 4 and CoD already benefit from dual cores and every major game in development currently will also most likely benefit from dual cores.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/page3.asp

"The numbers shrink as you move to 1280x1024 with 4x anti-aliasing, but that?s to be expected when graphics horsepower starts becoming the scarce resource. Even still, both dual-core chips pick up close to 40 percent higher frame rates. Hyper-Threading gives the Pentium 4 540 an extra 20 percent boost.

The party starts dwindling at 1600x1200. Consider that?s with 6xAA and 16xAF, though! Intel?s Pentium Extreme Edition is still able to snag nearly nine percent higher frame rates, too."

This was on a 3.2Ghz Pentium D machine with an X1800XT. Buy dual core now and then upgrade the graphics card in a year or two (or now for instant gratification) and you'll see even more benefit from dual core.

Sure, just like 2 years ago there was a dozen games in development that were supposed to benefit from SM3? :roll:

And let's not forget that CoD2 actually decreses in performance with the dual core patch. So that leaves us with only one game that has improved performance with dual cores, and still at 1600x1200 resolution a better video card would give you a bigger boost than dual cores.