Everyone Buy Opteron165

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

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

I probably will get the Q6600. I'm just worried about my PSU handling it, and really, $500 is alot to spend in comparison with just $80.

My real concern is that I will never put 4 cores to use. I would assume that 1 core can easily handle all of the processing demands of Vista leaving the other one free to game on or whatever.

I suppose Crysis will change this, and I just read something about Carmack using multicores on his new engine too.

Decisions...

 

[GeezerMan]

Well, I can speak to some of this. I have been playing with a neighbor's Acer Q6600 store bought rig, basic motherboard, basic 2GB ram, but it does have that impressive CPU. I can't comment on gaming, we are very casual gamers. What I can say is video compressing and encoding is excellent with the Q6600. My personal Opteron 165 sits at 2.6GHz. The Q6600 was twice as fast in some video compressing we tried. Informal tests done with a stopwatch and 2 movies.

 

[sayNOtoFSB]

Originally posted by: golem

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.

[/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?

[/quote]

As matter of fact I had a P4 @ 3 GHz and was foolish to believe that it was a better performer than A64 3200 (2 GHz). Did not buy my AMD because of the hype but facts and experience of ordinary users (not benchmark junkies). During that period the level of tolerance from AMD Camp were much higher and much politer (presenting logical reasoning to why I should switch). Ever since I have been happy w/ whatever chip AMD has offered me (A643200, Opteron 146, Opteron 165, and Brisbane 3600)
Don?t ask me why I switched to Brisbane from Opt 165 (well because I am preparing gradual upgrade to K10 having bought an AM2 platform). And speaking of the FUD,
I had to dig out the info of AM2+ (K10) backward compatibility, since so many here spreading false info (saying AM2 is not compatible w/ K10) and confusing me 9so as many other members here and all over the net).
The Brisbane I have is overclocked to 2.8 GHz and my system is cool (temp) and does the job well (surpasses my expectation). I only spent less than $250 for the CPU, Motherboard and 2x1gig of DDR2 800. I made wise investment and can?t be happier.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

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

I probably will get the Q6600. I'm just worried about my PSU handling it, and really, $500 is alot to spend in comparison with just $80.

My real concern is that I will never put 4 cores to use. I would assume that 1 core can easily handle all of the processing demands of Vista leaving the other one free to game on or whatever.

I suppose Crysis will change this, and I just read something about Carmack using multicores on his new engine too.

Decisions...

there is an easy way around it .. i use my $115 e4300 as a "placeholder" for Penryn - an affordable, cooler-running. 45 nm QC CPU late this year or early next. e4300 is no slouch at 3150Mhz, default vcore either - faster then your Opty.
i spent $180 on my MB but could have got away $80 cheaper if i eschewed the X-fire option ... that is $300 for CPU/MB ... $225 w/o sli or crossfire ... and you only have to replace the CPU - later, in a year or so, to get screaming performance - both now and later.

Just make *sure* your future new MB will support the new 45nm CPUs with a BIOS flash

a 'thought' to perhaps help with your decision .. QC will be mainstream by '09

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

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

I probably will get the Q6600. I'm just worried about my PSU handling it, and really, $500 is alot to spend in comparison with just $80.

My real concern is that I will never put 4 cores to use. I would assume that 1 core can easily handle all of the processing demands of Vista leaving the other one free to game on or whatever.

I suppose Crysis will change this, and I just read something about Carmack using multicores on his new engine too.

Decisions...

there is an easy way around it .. i use my $115 e4300 as a "placeholder" for Penryn - an affordable, cooler-running. 45 nm QC CPU late this year or early next. e4300 is no slouch at 3150Mhz, default vcore either - faster then your Opty.
i spent $180 on my MB but could have got away $80 cheaper if i eschewed the X-fire option ... that is $300 for CPU/MB ... $225 w/o sli or crossfire ... and you only have to replace the CPU - later, in a year or so, to get screaming performance - both now and later.

Just make *sure* your future new MB will support the new 45nm CPUs with a BIOS flash

a 'thought' to perhaps help with your decision .. QC will be mainstream by '09

Well, I'm not going to spend $400 on the platform and then only $100 on the CPU. If I go the intel route, it's Q6600 or bust. I want 4GB of ram too, seeing as it's so cheap now.

I plan on getting one of the cheap $120 Asus or Gigabyte boards that have no SLI. I've never considered SLI/CF as viable, especially with my current PSU.

Thanks for the advice!

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

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.

Mine did. Going from a 3000+ overclocked to 2.53 ghz to a E6300 overclocked to 3.3 ghz was a night and day difference for me.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

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.

Mine did. Going from a 3000+ overclocked to 2.53 ghz to a E6300 overclocked to 3.3 ghz was a night and day difference for me.

Having the extra core probably caused most of the difference.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

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

I probably will get the Q6600. I'm just worried about my PSU handling it, and really, $500 is alot to spend in comparison with just $80.

My real concern is that I will never put 4 cores to use. I would assume that 1 core can easily handle all of the processing demands of Vista leaving the other one free to game on or whatever.

I suppose Crysis will change this, and I just read something about Carmack using multicores on his new engine too.

Decisions...

there is an easy way around it .. i use my $115 e4300 as a "placeholder" for Penryn - an affordable, cooler-running. 45 nm QC CPU late this year or early next. e4300 is no slouch at 3150Mhz, default vcore either - faster then your Opty.
i spent $180 on my MB but could have got away $80 cheaper if i eschewed the X-fire option ... that is $300 for CPU/MB ... $225 w/o sli or crossfire ... and you only have to replace the CPU - later, in a year or so, to get screaming performance - both now and later.

Just make *sure* your future new MB will support the new 45nm CPUs with a BIOS flash

a 'thought' to perhaps help with your decision .. QC will be mainstream by '09

Well, I'm not going to spend $400 on the platform and then only $100 on the CPU. If I go the intel route, it's Q6600 or bust. I want 4GB of ram too, seeing as it's so cheap now.

I plan on getting one of the cheap $120 Asus or Gigabyte boards that have no SLI. I've never considered SLI/CF as viable, especially with my current PSU.

Thanks for the advice!

i guess you are not an OC'er ... the e4300 can easily hit over 3Ghz making it very close in performance to your $266 CPU

and you will probably upgrade your Q6600 when i do

 

[vanvock]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

I've got a 175 ordered from ZZF for $143

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: slag
Mine did. Going from a 3000+ overclocked to 2.53 ghz to a E6300 overclocked to 3.3 ghz was a night and day difference for me.

Having the extra core probably caused most of the difference.

Umm, a 3.3 Ghz C2D is the equivalent of a 4.0+ Ghz A64, and that's in single-threaded apps.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i guess you are not an OC'er ... the e4300 can easily hit over 3Ghz making it very close in performance to your $266 CPU

and you will probably upgrade your Q6600 when i do

I *am* an OC'er...I'm running my Opteron 144 that Zebo gave me at 2.7ghz.

My FS/FT deal has been recusitated and he will be shipping me the Opteron 165 on Saturday. So...for less than $200 I'm getting a decent upgrade that will hopefully hold me off for some time. The Q6600 would have been $500+.

DDR1 RAM has dropped to $50/gig, so I'm going to buy 2GB worth and add it to my 1.5GB for 3.5GB total.

Hopefully by going this route I can hold off until DDR3 is mainstream. Things seem very transistional when it comes to memory right now; I've never seen 3 memory standards all sold at once, aside from perhaps RAMBUS (but really who used that anyways?).

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: slag
Mine did. Going from a 3000+ overclocked to 2.53 ghz to a E6300 overclocked to 3.3 ghz was a night and day difference for me.

Having the extra core probably caused most of the difference.

Umm, a 3.3 Ghz C2D is the equivalent of a 4.0+ Ghz A64, and that's in single-threaded apps.

That's fine, but he's comparing a single cored A64 with a dual cored C2D. He commented on a 'world of difference', which I take as general usage performance. Going to a dual core will make a 'world of difference' when it comes to overall system performance no matter what. Only in most games will a single core match a dual core.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: apoppin
i guess you are not an OC'er ... the e4300 can easily hit over 3Ghz making it very close in performance to your $266 CPU

and you will probably upgrade your Q6600 when i do

I *am* an OC'er...I'm running my Opteron 144 that Zebo gave me at 2.7ghz.

My FS/FT deal has been recusitated and he will be shipping me the Opteron 165 on Saturday. So...for less than $200 I'm getting a decent upgrade that will hopefully hold me off for some time. The Q6600 would have been $500+.

DDR1 RAM has dropped to $50/gig, so I'm going to buy 2GB worth and add it to my 1.5GB for 3.5GB total.

Hopefully by going this route I can hold off until DDR3 is mainstream. Things seem very transistional when it comes to memory right now; I've never seen 3 memory standards all sold at once, aside from perhaps RAMBUS (but really who used that anyways?).

the way you are doing it is fine ... i was just throwing out more options ... -since you asked

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: apoppin
the way you are doing it is fine ... i was just throwing out more options ... -since you asked

I appreciate it.

I'm finding Vista very sluggish. I suppose that's my main reason for upgrading.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

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.

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

That doesnt make a whole lot of sense, since encoding is one of the largest areas the Core 2 Duo excels...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: apoppin
the way you are doing it is fine ... i was just throwing out more options ... -since you asked

I appreciate it.

I'm finding Vista very sluggish. I suppose that's my main reason for upgrading.

with brand new HW, Vista32 flies ... i like it a LOT better then XP which really seem primitive in comparison. Games are NO slower as my 2900xt vs 8800GTS/ XP vs. Vista tests showed.
-and it surprised the hell out of me as i only had experience with RC2 and older HW ... and i am only using 2GB RAM and haven't even configured my 2GB Ready-boost yet

 

[zach0624]

I have only bought AMD cpus since I started using computers because of their better value. But do to poor clock for clock performance the next build I'm doing is going to be a intel c2d. My reason for switching is also the reason I went with AMD in the first place. While overclocking is better than the few athlon xp processors I have overclocked. It may just be me but I notice a difference in speed between my overclocked cpu and it running at stock speed.

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
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.

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.

Actually, it makes him look exactly like what he appears to be-- an AMD-paid viral marketer.

I can see his point. For most things, I see very little difference between my old Athlon X2 Toledo @ 2.6 Ghz and my current Allendale running at 2.9 Ghz. I also had a lot of motherboard issues, which were a pain, so overall it's not a bad idea to stick with an AMD system if you already have a good motherboard. I have to admit that my E4400 overclock was a bit disappointing but I've tried the cpu in ther motherbaords, and that it what is maxes out at (I did the pin-mod as well).

I don't really "encode" video to DivX much - too many sound synch issues. Rather, I just re-encode to a lower bitrate with DVDShrink, and there is not much speed difference between C2D and X2.

For a living, I do a lot of genertic algorithm calculations, data fitting, etc...Again, I don't see the 20% difference in clock-for-clock speed tests - I generally see about 10%. I am using math libraries that fully use SSE2 and SSE3.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

None of this changes the FACT that AMD still offers the best bang for the buck atm . This is when you take into account that between a kick ass AMD CPU & Mobo still puts you a good $100 under what an equivelant INTEL system will cost.

If you have the money to burn then by all means, go get a Q6850 and $300 680i mobo and enjoy your superior performance. However, if you want max performance on a budget go with AMD. You can get a Retail 3600 x2 & TF-7050 mobo which should get you arround 3ghz with ease ( and give you HDCP compliance as well : ) for arround $130 shipped. You'll pay that for the E4300 alone.

BEHOLD !!! THE $95 shipped NIB OPTY 165 !!!!

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused
None of this changes the FACT that AMD still offers the best bang for the buck atm . This is when you take into account that between a kick ass AMD CPU & Mobo still puts you a good $100 under what an equivelant INTEL system will cost.

If you have the money to burn then by all means, go get a Q6850 and $300 680i mobo and enjoy your superior performance. However, if you want max performance on a budget go with AMD. You can get a Retail 3600 x2 & TF-7050 mobo which should get you arround 3ghz with ease ( and give you HDCP compliance as well : ) for arround $130 shipped. You'll pay that for the E4300 alone.

BEHOLD !!! THE $95 shipped NIB OPTY 165 !!!!

I tend to agree with you, although if you look at the performance the Q6600 will give you for $266, I would suggest that it's worth the extra money.

I just bought a used Opteron 165 for $80 shipped. I don't have access to the newegg deals here in Canada. For me, an entire platform overhaul is a royal pain and would cost way more.

 

[Elusiv1]

That's a very nice OC on that Opty 165, i can't hit that with my Opty 180.. At least not with this motherboard.:thumbsdown:

 

[amenx]

Yes I would agree value-wise AMD looks good. I think they realized they can not compete head to head with Intel so were forced into drastic price cut just to stay in the game. Their top current CPU, the 6000+ is the equivalent of an Intel mid-range (e6600). But its value is really for those who dont OC (non-enthusiasts?) as its a poor choice for OC'ers really. AMD had raised the frequency so high on this chip you can barely get 100-200mhz out of it and this with extra cooling. Intel chips however have massive headroom here can do over 50% easy. Its ironic that its come down to this, the value in AMDs top chip appealing to non-enthusiasts, this from a brand once revered by enthusiasts.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused
None of this changes the FACT that AMD still offers the best bang for the buck atm . This is when you take into account that between a kick ass AMD CPU & Mobo still puts you a good $100 under what an equivelant INTEL system will cost.

If you have the money to burn then by all means, go get a Q6850 and $300 680i mobo and enjoy your superior performance. However, if you want max performance on a budget go with AMD. You can get a Retail 3600 x2 & TF-7050 mobo which should get you arround 3ghz with ease ( and give you HDCP compliance as well : ) for arround $130 shipped. You'll pay that for the E4300 alone.

BEHOLD !!! THE $95 shipped NIB OPTY 165 !!!!

I agree that on the low end, AMD offers the best bang for the buck, but your $100 figure seems wildly inflated.

I would consider one of the Core2d based pentium dual cores more of a match for an X2 than a E4300. The pentium will be slower on most non gpu limited games than an X2 but it will also win it's fair share of benchmarks. It should be about 30 bucks or so more than an X2 system.

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

 

[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.

 

[apoppin]

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.

its actually more than benchmarks .... the latest games do require CPU power and it is only going to need more and more especially for SLI/X-fire rigs.

If you want the midrange/upper-mid ... or want to argue AMD's power or performance for dollar in specific situations, fine. But if you want the fastest CPU performance - right now - i believe we are only speaking of intel. Perhaps AMD will again compete in the highest end again - i sure hope so ... but it is not competing there right now

and benchmarks are quite useful to the rest of us ... i needed to know which GPU was faster - 2900xt or 8800GTS-640M OC, so i benched them along with some other forum members ... and now the guys in video know what card to get for what purpose.