Everyone Buy Opteron165

[SimMike2]

This isn't an exact comparison, CPU speed for CPU speed, but I recently upgrade to an Intel 4300 which I overclock to 2.88GHz with DDR2 800 memory. My old rig was an Opty 165 running at 2.5 GHz with DDR 400 memory. I did a test with DVD Shrink, using the exact same files and exact same quality settings. The Intel C2D did the encode in 25 minutes. The Opty did the same exact encode in 45 minutes. To me this isn't just a meaningless benchmark, this is a very real, measurable performance gain for encoding, which plenty of people do with their computers.

Some of this can be attributed to the slower clock of the Opty, 2.5 vs. 2.88, and some of it can be attributed to the slower memory, 400 vs. 800, but the end result in my test was the C2D smoked the Opty. I mean it smoked it! Rarely have I done an upgrade where a simple test like this was so dramatically faster than the previous one.

 

[golem]

I swear to fn god I'll kill the next person that brings up benchmarks. If I buy a system it's not to benchmark it from sun up to sun down. It's to use it for whatever the hell I feel like at that moment. As long as I don't notice any chugga chugga or putput from it then who gives a donkey shit about friggen benchmarks ?

"Oh, my intel can benchmark better than your AMD." And you spent how much of your fn cash to revolve your life arround benchmarking ? It's nice to see that all you benchmarking idiots are buying CPU's for what they were meant to do, cause there is no way a CPU power was meant to be used to lets say, watch a movie, download something from the net, play a game or 2, write a letter to a family member.

Yes, I've benchmarked each of my systems a few times, but then I downclock my system and use it to surf forums and play the occasional game.

Also lets not forget AMD systems own the low power segment atm. I'm about to build a low power media PC cause I finally ofund out just how much power my lil Lan Box is sucking down, and I'ma use the brisbane 3600 x2 ( and I'll prob downclock it ) on a TF-7050 mobo. And it'll suck down less power than any C2D or PD rig.

How can you say AMD is the best bang for the buck if you can't somehow measure the "bang"? by benchmarking?

If you don't have someway of objectively measuring performance, I could bring up cheap Intel chips (Pentium D, Pentium E or Conroe L) and just say they make Intel the best bang for the buck.

 

[amenx]

Originally posted by: SimMike2
This isn't an exact comparison, CPU speed for CPU speed, but I recently upgrade to an Intel 4300 which I overclock to 2.88GHz with DDR2 800 memory. My old rig was an Opty 165 running at 2.5 GHz with DDR 400 memory. I did a test with DVD Shrink, using the exact same files and exact same quality settings. The Intel C2D did the encode in 25 minutes. The Opty did the same exact encode in 45 minutes. To me this isn't just a meaningless benchmark, this is a very real, measurable performance gain for encoding, which plenty of people do with their computers.

Some of this can be attributed to the slower clock of the Opty, 2.5 vs. 2.88, and some of it can be attributed to the slower memory, 400 vs. 800, but the end result in my test was the C2D smoked the Opty. I mean it smoked it! Rarely have I done an upgrade where a simple test like this was so dramatically faster than the previous one.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Media encoding and video apps/editing are the area where the most significant gains can be seen. Sure there are areas where you cant tell the difference between a C2D and its AMD counterpart, i.e., web browsing, office apps, practically ANY gaming where you have a strong GPU and consistent over 40 FPS with a weaker CPU, you will not see a difference with a more powerful CPU. But to use that in a lame argument that an e6600 is not a significant upgrade over n X2 3800 is laughable (but fully understood coming from one with a nick like NoToFSB, lol)

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused

An E4300 with an average OC will beat a X2 with an average OC on just about every benchmark.

Cause you know how most people do nothing but benchmark all day long. Hell, I spend so much time benchmarking that I don't eat or sleep, thats just how much benchmarks mean to me

If it wasn't for benchmarks I don't know what else PC's would be good for other than to hold computer desks down.

I swear to fn god I'll kill the next person that brings up benchmarks. If I buy a system it's not to benchmark it from sun up to sun down. It's to use it for whatever the hell I feel like at that moment. As long as I don't notice any chugga chugga or putput from it then who gives a donkey shit about friggen benchmarks ?

"Oh, my intel can benchmark better than your AMD." And you spent how much of your fn cash to revolve your life arround benchmarking ? It's nice to see that all you benchmarking idiots are buying CPU's for what they were meant to do, cause there is no way a CPU power was meant to be used to lets say, watch a movie, download something from the net, play a game or 2, write a letter to a family member.

Yes, I've benchmarked each of my systems a few times, but then I downclock my system and use it to surf forums and play the occasional game.

Also lets not forget AMD systems own the low power segment atm. I'm about to build a low power media PC cause I finally ofund out just how much power my lil Lan Box is sucking down, and I'ma use the brisbane 3600 x2 ( and I'll prob downclock it ) on a TF-7050 mobo. And it'll suck down less power than any C2D or PD rig.

Thats why you dont look at artificial benchmarks like superpi, sandra, everest, and 3dmark.

You look at benches for applications and games you use.

And you know what? C2D still wins across the board... Its not about benchmarks, C2D is just plain faster.

(Note that i owned 3 A64 machines, when they were the fastest)

And id love to challenge your low power statement, since my C2D E4300 runs at 200x7 @ 1.0v

 

[covert24]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused

An E4300 with an average OC will beat a X2 with an average OC on just about every benchmark.

Cause you know how most people do nothing but benchmark all day long. Hell, I spend so much time benchmarking that I don't eat or sleep, thats just how much benchmarks mean to me

If it wasn't for benchmarks I don't know what else PC's would be good for other than to hold computer desks down.

I swear to fn god I'll kill the next person that brings up benchmarks. If I buy a system it's not to benchmark it from sun up to sun down. It's to use it for whatever the hell I feel like at that moment. As long as I don't notice any chugga chugga or putput from it then who gives a donkey shit about friggen benchmarks ?

"Oh, my intel can benchmark better than your AMD." And you spent how much of your fn cash to revolve your life arround benchmarking ? It's nice to see that all you benchmarking idiots are buying CPU's for what they were meant to do, cause there is no way a CPU power was meant to be used to lets say, watch a movie, download something from the net, play a game or 2, write a letter to a family member.

Yes, I've benchmarked each of my systems a few times, but then I downclock my system and use it to surf forums and play the occasional game.

Also lets not forget AMD systems own the low power segment atm. I'm about to build a low power media PC cause I finally ofund out just how much power my lil Lan Box is sucking down, and I'ma use the brisbane 3600 x2 ( and I'll prob downclock it ) on a TF-7050 mobo. And it'll suck down less power than any C2D or PD rig.

Thats why you dont look at artificial benchmarks like superpi, sandra, everest, and 3dmark.

You look at benches for applications and games you use.

And you know what? C2D still wins across the board... Its not about benchmarks, C2D is just plain faster.

(Note that i owned 3 A64 machines, when they were the fastest)

And id love to challenge your low power statement, since my C2D E4300 runs at 200x7 @ 1.0v

hes not talking about voltages hes talking about overall watts. AMD already has a 45w Brisbane out right now as opposed to your 65w on that E4300. And all you did to get that voltage was downclock it by .2v and lower the multiplier by 2. so judging by that your 'low power' isn't all that impressive since anyone could do that.

anyway lets get back on topic over here. remember this thread is about the opty 165 so get back on it.

 

[Acanthus]

http://porchtalk.com/upload/files/11/lolowvolt.jpg

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: covert24

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused

An E4300 with an average OC will beat a X2 with an average OC on just about every benchmark.

Cause you know how most people do nothing but benchmark all day long. Hell, I spend so much time benchmarking that I don't eat or sleep, thats just how much benchmarks mean to me

If it wasn't for benchmarks I don't know what else PC's would be good for other than to hold computer desks down.

I swear to fn god I'll kill the next person that brings up benchmarks. If I buy a system it's not to benchmark it from sun up to sun down. It's to use it for whatever the hell I feel like at that moment. As long as I don't notice any chugga chugga or putput from it then who gives a donkey shit about friggen benchmarks ?

"Oh, my intel can benchmark better than your AMD." And you spent how much of your fn cash to revolve your life arround benchmarking ? It's nice to see that all you benchmarking idiots are buying CPU's for what they were meant to do, cause there is no way a CPU power was meant to be used to lets say, watch a movie, download something from the net, play a game or 2, write a letter to a family member.

Yes, I've benchmarked each of my systems a few times, but then I downclock my system and use it to surf forums and play the occasional game.

Also lets not forget AMD systems own the low power segment atm. I'm about to build a low power media PC cause I finally ofund out just how much power my lil Lan Box is sucking down, and I'ma use the brisbane 3600 x2 ( and I'll prob downclock it ) on a TF-7050 mobo. And it'll suck down less power than any C2D or PD rig.

Thats why you dont look at artificial benchmarks like superpi, sandra, everest, and 3dmark.

You look at benches for applications and games you use.

And you know what? C2D still wins across the board... Its not about benchmarks, C2D is just plain faster.

(Note that i owned 3 A64 machines, when they were the fastest)

And id love to challenge your low power statement, since my C2D E4300 runs at 200x7 @ 1.0v

hes not talking about voltages hes talking about overall watts. AMD already has a 45w Brisbane out right now as opposed to your 65w on that E4300. And all you did to get that voltage was downclock it by .2v and lower the multiplier by 2. so judging by that your 'low power' isn't all that impressive since anyone could do that.

anyway lets get back on topic over here. remember this thread is about the opty 165 so get back on it.

Uhh, dropping the voltage by 33% and keeping stock speed any more impressive?

You wanna estimate the power draw of a C2D allendale @ 1.8ghz and 0.95v?

Since it still draws less power than a brisbane at that point

I didnt say it was impressive at all, i was refuting that AMD has an advantage because they draw less power if underclocked...

And the way you talked down to me i sincerely hope you understand the basics of how that power draw is calculated, lowering the voltage significantly reduces power draw.

So if i drop the fsb down to 533, im drawing around 15 watts.

 

[lopri]

I can attest that C2D/C2Q can run with quite less than specified voltages for the stock frequencies. (I mean, think about their overclock-ability)

http://img142.imageshack.us/my...image=q6600lowvde5.png

While A64 architecture is noticeably slower than C2D in encoding (saying otherwise is plain simple wrong, IMO). E6600 @3.60GHz was almost 50% faster than 165 @2.80GHz if I remember correctly. But thing is, I don't sit and watch encoding from beginning to finish. I normally find something else to do while encoding DVDs, so the difference in time is less meaningful. (in other words, whether it takes 40 mins or 60 mins, I'd probably be doing something else in the meantime) This will of course depend heavily on codecs/formats and clips, etc. But I do get amazed sometimes how fast Q6600 is at encoding compared to any Opteron I've used in the past.

But Opterons are by no means bad chips. And Opteron 165 for $95(?) is an incredible value, IMO. I dunno.. It should easily overclock to 2.70GHz, which will tear through any desktop applications. Remember folks, we were talking about how fast Opterons are - only a year and a half ago.. While it's out-shadowed by C2D today, you can't say it's 'slow' by any means. Think about the apps that were installed in your system a year ago, and compare them with today's. For me there is nothing really breaking-new apps that I've been using for the past year. (hence my main rig still being the DFI LanParty)

One of the few advantages that A64 holds (besides prices) is the maturity of platform, I think. Be it Socket 939 or AM2, or maybe because of its high-quality IMC, AMD platform seems more stable than C2D platform these days. (sans Quad FX) It's such an irony because Intel has been known for its stability/durability. It's definitely due to its age (A64 has been out for such long time) but even a cheap (less than $100) board will provide a very solid performance and overclocking. On the other hand, the only truly stable platform I've experienced (975X, P965, 680i) has been 975X, and of course that's because of its age.

I am digressing but back to the topic: If you have an existing Socket 939 system with a single-core A64 - get an 165 already. Overclock it to 2.70~2.80GHz (should be easily done with/near stock vCore) and you're good for some (long) time to come.

 

[covert24]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: covert24

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused

An E4300 with an average OC will beat a X2 with an average OC on just about every benchmark.

Cause you know how most people do nothing but benchmark all day long. Hell, I spend so much time benchmarking that I don't eat or sleep, thats just how much benchmarks mean to me

If it wasn't for benchmarks I don't know what else PC's would be good for other than to hold computer desks down.

I swear to fn god I'll kill the next person that brings up benchmarks. If I buy a system it's not to benchmark it from sun up to sun down. It's to use it for whatever the hell I feel like at that moment. As long as I don't notice any chugga chugga or putput from it then who gives a donkey shit about friggen benchmarks ?

"Oh, my intel can benchmark better than your AMD." And you spent how much of your fn cash to revolve your life arround benchmarking ? It's nice to see that all you benchmarking idiots are buying CPU's for what they were meant to do, cause there is no way a CPU power was meant to be used to lets say, watch a movie, download something from the net, play a game or 2, write a letter to a family member.

Yes, I've benchmarked each of my systems a few times, but then I downclock my system and use it to surf forums and play the occasional game.

Also lets not forget AMD systems own the low power segment atm. I'm about to build a low power media PC cause I finally ofund out just how much power my lil Lan Box is sucking down, and I'ma use the brisbane 3600 x2 ( and I'll prob downclock it ) on a TF-7050 mobo. And it'll suck down less power than any C2D or PD rig.

Thats why you dont look at artificial benchmarks like superpi, sandra, everest, and 3dmark.

You look at benches for applications and games you use.

And you know what? C2D still wins across the board... Its not about benchmarks, C2D is just plain faster.

(Note that i owned 3 A64 machines, when they were the fastest)

And id love to challenge your low power statement, since my C2D E4300 runs at 200x7 @ 1.0v

hes not talking about voltages hes talking about overall watts. AMD already has a 45w Brisbane out right now as opposed to your 65w on that E4300. And all you did to get that voltage was downclock it by .2v and lower the multiplier by 2. so judging by that your 'low power' isn't all that impressive since anyone could do that.

anyway lets get back on topic over here. remember this thread is about the opty 165 so get back on it.

Uhh, dropping the voltage by 33% and keeping stock speed any more impressive?

You wanna estimate the power draw of a C2D allendale @ 1.8ghz and 0.95v?

Since it still draws less power than a brisbane at that point

I didnt say it was impressive at all, i was refuting that AMD has an advantage because they draw less power if underclocked...

And the way you talked down to me i sincerely hope you understand the basics of how that power draw is calculated, lowering the voltage significantly reduces power draw.

So if i drop the fsb down to 533, im drawing around 15 watts.

lol sry it was late and i didn't mean to talk down to or criticize anyone. and that U7600 is crazy. that could almost be passivly cooled.

 

[SickBeast]

Well, I got my Opteron 165 finally. It overclocks to 2.65ghz at 1.4v. One of the cores looks like it can go higher, but the other is holding me back.

It's not an FSB limitiation because my Opteron 144 ran at 2.7ghz flawlessly.

Not bad for $80.

If I could have gotten a new one, I would have, but living in Canada does have its disadvantages. :beer:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Well, I got my Opteron 165 finally. It overclocks to 2.65ghz at 1.4v. One of the cores looks like it can go higher, but the other is holding me back.

It's not an FSB limitiation because my Opteron 144 ran at 2.7ghz flawlessly.

Not bad for $80.

If I could have gotten a new one, I would have, but living in Canada does have its disadvantages. :beer:

not bad at all ... congrats!

edited

--free Canadian medical care is nice
[beats me driving 3 hours to the Southern Border]

 

[SlowSpyder]

I thnk lopri hit it right on the head. I know this is a tech forum and a lot of us like the newest toys. But, I've seen a lot of people here that seem to think that as soon as something newer/faster comes out that means their old stuff is garbage. A lot of people were running A64's dual cores not that long ago, and they did anything well enough. Then C2D's came out and people fall in love with benchmarks. There's nothing wrong with upgrading to new toys, and for a lot of people that extra speed is put to use (like people that do a lot of encoding work) but for others not much changes other then 3DMark scores and their prime scores. I guess it all depends on what you are going to use it for. But, my point is just because there is something faster that doesn't mean that last years hardware is garbage. I usually look at every other generation of CPU's but constantly look at GPU's. I use my PC for general stuff (web surfing, office/e-mail, digital photos, etc... nothing that will benefit from a faster processor then my current one) and gaming. I game at 1680 x 1050, my money is much better spent on video cards at this point. Just my $.02

 

[johnnq1]

my lcbqe 170 (bought when the deal was first announced) reached 2.95 with clockgen, but won't boot into windows. i lowered it to 2.7 and everything's fine...strange.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: johnnq1
my lcbqe 170 (bought when the deal was first announced) reached 2.95 with clockgen, but won't boot into windows. i lowered it to 2.7 and everything's fine...strange.

That sounds like a stability issue. Have you tried running Prime95? You need to run it twice; once for each core (and set the affinity).

 

[NoSoup4You]

Lopri, how much vcore are you running to be stable at 2.8Ghz? I'd love to squeeze a little more juice out of my 2+ year old X2 4400+, but I'm hesitant to exceed 1.45v.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: NoSoup4You
Lopri, how much vcore are you running to be stable at 2.8Ghz? I'd love to squeeze a little more juice out of my 2+ year old X2 4400+, but I'm hesitant to exceed 1.45v.

I wouldn't do more than 1.45, man. Gets too hot even with a nice cooler.