• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dual 246 Opteron Vs Single Fx-53

Dual Opterons.

If you're going SCSI, get onboard or one with a PCI 64/66 slot. If you can, wait until PCI-E hits the server/workstation market.
 
I'd guess yes. PCI-E is on the way, the video cards are on the horizon so I'd guess that the other misc. adapter cards are also in the works.
 
I was just wondering if it was worth the money to upgrade to an FX-53 FROM a dual 2ghz xeon...

what do you think?
 
I suppose it depends on how many programs you tend to run at one time (i.e. how much multi-tasking you do). If you use your system primarily for gaming, then you would likely see a large boost, but if you like to game while burning a CD or running anti-virus, or other programs, then you might want to stick with the Xeons for now.
 
Dual Opterons of course. The true question is, however, which setup would cost more? I would venture to say the Opterons. Then again I venture to say alot of things. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: camara120
I was just wondering if it was worth the money to upgrade to an FX-53 FROM a dual 2ghz xeon...

what do you think?
Click to expand...

Dual rigs run Windows really really fast. I doubt the FX could touch your setup as far as general usage goes. Also, your rig is teh roXorS (read: VERY VERY GOOD) at video encoding. Do you do alot of this?

Do you game alot? Because the FX is incredible in this area.

Myself I would keep the XEONS. You have rich taste in hardware, now don't you lad?
 
sickbeast,

its actually a friend that wants to upgrade. she does 2d/3d graphic design mainly and a little video stuff now and then. no gaming at all. what do you think?
 
I think your friend should read this review:

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2004q2/opteron-x50/index.x?pg=1

The FX-53 is essentially the same as the opteron 150, and the Opt 150 is about $180 less expensive (than the FX-53)

As far as dual 246 Vs single 150 (FX-53), it's in that review as well.

Depending on the test, the single 150 will be marginally faster than a dual 246 (games and single threaded applications) or the dual 246 will be much faster than the single 150 (multi-threaded applications, 3dsmax, lightwave, etc).

It sounds like for your friends usage the dual 246 would be much better and there would be no benefit going to the 150/FX-53

-D'oh!
 
AnnoyedGrunt,

my friend actually has a dual 2ghz xeon setup and was wondering if the Opteron150/FX-53 would be faster.... what do you think?
 
IMO the dual XEONS will be faster considering what she does with her computer. For graphic design having two CPUs is useful as she can perform many other tasks in the background as she does her work, such as burning CDs or encoding video.

I'm very surprised she's looking to upgrade with a setup like that.
 
An Opteron 150 is the same speed as an FX-51, but a lot cheaper, with the option to upgrade to dual CPU, or even effectively quad CPU with dual core chips later on.

Something about the FX/Socket 939 pricing just doesn't make sense when contrasted with Opteron. Maybe Opteron should be more....
 
Originally posted by: glugglug
An Opteron 150 is the same speed as an FX-51, but a lot cheaper, with the option to upgrade to dual CPU, or even effectively quad CPU with dual core chips later on.

Something about the FX/Socket 939 pricing just doesn't make sense when contrasted with Opteron. Maybe Opteron should be more....
Click to expand...

I don't think you could upgrade to dual with a 150. The 1xx line is supposed to be single CPU only. You'd need a 2xx for dual CPU.
 
The 150 is the same as the FX-53, not the 51, which makes it an even better deal. The 148 is the same as the FX-51 (and when I say "same" I mean that they have the same specs and performance, even though they have different names - I'm not really sure if there is actually anything different about them).

To run two Opterons you have to get the 2XX series, which is of course much more expensive per chip. To run more than two Opterons, you need to get the 8XX series which is rediculously priced (unless you are a company or reaaaalllly nerdy 😉).

Camara120, that test shows results from a Dual Xeon 3.2, which for what your friend is doing is about the same as a dual Opteron 250, and a tiny bit faster than a Dual 246 and quite a bit faster than a single 150/FX-53. Unfortunately, I don't know how a Dual Xeon 2.0 compares, although I imagine it would be about the same as a single 150 (if we assume that a 2.0 is 66% as fast as the 3.2) in multithreaded aps and much slower in games. However, unless she's playing lots of games, it probably isn't worth it to upgrade.

For single processor usage, the Opteron, for whatever reason, is by far the best value at the very high end. Strange how the pricing is like that. I'm guessing that AMD is trying so hard to break into the server market they need to keep those Opteron prices competitive with the Xeons, and that is why they are so much less than the FX-series. Intel just doesn't have that same advantage in the desktop enthusiast market that they enjoy in the server market. Anyway, just a guess as to whey the opterons seem to be such a good value.

-D'oh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top