Bought an Opty 165 never overclocked in my life. Have it running at 2.8ghz at less than 1.4v. had it up to 3.1 with around 1.45 volts. unbeliavble fast. its running at around 320 x 9
Everyone Buy Opteron165
- Thread starter Scoronaakf1215
- Start date
thats sweet. Wish my x2 3800+ toledo would do 2.8ghz just like that. It might btw, but I would have to be pushihg more voltage through my ram. Since ambient temps went up to 25+ here anyways I don't wanna try right now lol. Heres one thing though, if I get a new rig, I'm gonna OC the shit out of this one, just to try it out and see if I can hit 2.8-3ghz 
I've been hearing that the more recent AMD CPUs are hitting over 3ghz easily. The trouble is that they're still 20% slower than the intel chips clock-for-clock.
Where did you get your 165? I've been finding them hard to find.
Where did you get your 165? I've been finding them hard to find.
I love my 165. I know that the C2D's are a lot faster, but I don't care about 3D Mark scores and am limited by my video card a lot more then anything. Good processor for the price, if you overclock.
trueth be told, for the price of opty 165, I'd probably get a E4300 which after OC to 3 or so, runs about 15-20% after than a 3Ghz opty 165 and probably use less power.
Well when someone already has a 939 rig, the upgrade to a 165 is tempting. I might get one if they're cheap enough on FS/FT (I was gonna build a Q6600 rig).
I'm glad to hear this, since a brand spanking new opty 165 is in the mail heading for my home right now.
Yeah, but in the real world that equals a few fps extra in games, or a couple of minutes faster in encoding.
There's not a whole load of difference between my X2 3800+ @ 2.8Ghz and my E6600 @ 3.2Ghz tbh.
I kinda regretted upgrading. It just wasn't justified in the end.
My C2D didn't live up to the hype some folks would have us believe.
If you do the math, a C2D at 3.2 ghz is 30% to 40% faster than a X2 processor at 2.8ghz. If you use programs that would benefit from the extra horsepower, or aren't GPU limited, that's not really hype at all.
IF you use programs that benefit from the extra horsepower.
Thats the thing. In my general use it just wasn't worth it.
From games to video encoding, i haven't seen a huge difference.
Money well spent?
For some, yes.
For me...not really.
Unfortunately 90% of people are feeling the same as you do. the other 10% never owned an AMD to compare it w/ or are just Intel marketer thugs spreading hype for intel and fud on amd.
mellow it out everyone ... we do NOT allow personal nor unsubstantiated attacks
--CPU Moderator apoppin
If you can't tell the difference between an X2 at 2.8GHz and an E6600 at 3.2GHz, then please, feel free to stick with what works for you, but don't generalize about what "90%" of people are feeling, because it just makes you look like a fool.
no it doesn't .. You are breaking the rules here ... we do NOT allow personal attacks!
--CPU Moderator apoppin
You probably should have sold your x2 3800+ system and downgraded instead is what it sounds like.
Heh, not to be mean, but with a handle like "sayNOtoFSB" it's hard to take him (or her) seriously.
Well I'm buying a 165 off fs/ft instead of the quad. Hopefully you guys are right. I actually was curious about whether the C2Ds offered a noticeable difference. Thanks everyone for the honest feedback! It's not always easy to talk about a purchase you regret.
If you do the math, a C2D at 3.2 ghz is 30% to 40% faster than a X2 processor at 2.8ghz. If you use programs that would benefit from the extra horsepower, or aren't GPU limited, that's not really hype at all.
[/quote]
IF you use programs that benefit from the extra horsepower.
Thats the thing. In my general use it just wasn't worth it.
From games to video encoding, i haven't seen a huge difference.
Money well spent?
For some, yes.
For me...not really.
[/quote]
I can see what you're saying, but really, is it because others were hyping the C2D or that you didn't purchase the right CPU for your needs.
There's a reason why the high clocked C2D are usually benchmarked high end video cards, lower or mid tier video cards won't show much of a difference at higher resolutions.
And Say no to FSB, does that mean all the people that bought Amd X2 chips a while back just fell to the hype of AMD thugs and marketers and should have bought the cheaper Pentium Ds instead?
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,570
- 10,204
- 126
At the very least, video encoding should be a lot faster. If it isn't, something else is wrong. Perhaps he is limited by the speed of the HD? I have that problem sometimes. CPUs get faster, and HDs don't.
Truthfully, it's hard to tell what the 'average' consumer needs, because everyone does something a little different. If you spend any time manipulating pictures and/or dealing with family digital home videos, the extra CPU horsepower can be great.
Then again, I think what we're running into is the reality that, for many consumers with basic needs, we're hitting a wall of ROI with modern processors.
If you do encoding, you need the extra power. If you're into gaming with very high-end video cards, the extra power is again useful. If you've got modest encoding/rendering needs and can only afford to game with a mid-range video card, you probably will be content with either a good X2 or C2D.
Coming here, it's easy to get carried away with the excitement over C2D simply because: a) Intel hadn't produced such a great chip in a while, and, b) some of them overclock exceptionally well, which always excites the enthusiast audience.
If you couple that with the fact that, after the price cuts on the 22nd, C2D is a better price/performer at stock in many instances, it gets a lot of attention here.
The X2's are still more than enough for a lot of folks, however. It's a good time to be a consumer, no doubt.
Then again, I think what we're running into is the reality that, for many consumers with basic needs, we're hitting a wall of ROI with modern processors.
If you do encoding, you need the extra power. If you're into gaming with very high-end video cards, the extra power is again useful. If you've got modest encoding/rendering needs and can only afford to game with a mid-range video card, you probably will be content with either a good X2 or C2D.
Coming here, it's easy to get carried away with the excitement over C2D simply because: a) Intel hadn't produced such a great chip in a while, and, b) some of them overclock exceptionally well, which always excites the enthusiast audience.
If you couple that with the fact that, after the price cuts on the 22nd, C2D is a better price/performer at stock in many instances, it gets a lot of attention here.
The X2's are still more than enough for a lot of folks, however. It's a good time to be a consumer, no doubt.
apoppin
Lifer
Please settle this discussion down ... we do not call each other "viral marketers" nor fools
----CPU Moderator apoppin
carry on more politely, please
----CPU Moderator apoppin
carry on more politely, please
Well, it's now looking like my deal for the 165 on fs/ft is falling through; the guy has no heatware and my guess is he would rather ebay it than wait for shipment before I pay him. So, my dillema is: Do I pay $175 for an Opteron 175 (irony), or do I buy the Q6600 for $266 (again, kinda ironic price)? I'll probably get the quad unless I can find a 165/170/175 on fs/ft.
apoppin
Lifer
eventually ... you will upgrade anyway ... the Opty looks like just an "interim" solution
i did what you did with my P4-AGP system ... it cost about the same money to ultimately upgrade ... but the amount of time wasted ... was wasted
[except for what i learned]
Go for the Q666 ... i mean Q6600
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter