HOT! Opteron 240s on Tankguys for $75

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: sm8000

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: moonsite
Does it require a socket 940 board?

Yes

EDIT:
I should also ADD that two single core opterons are faster than one Dual Core Opteron by 10%. Both have two CPU's but the twin single core chips each have their own front side bus.

Opterons do not have a front side bus. All AMD64 architecture eliminates the FSB by putting the memory controller in the CPU.

Did you mean to say HTT (HyperTransport) instead?

I know that and that is what I meant to say. Some call it an Intergrated FSB. The differance between a Single dual core opteron and two single core opterons is the two single core chips each have thier own memory controller, giving the two single chips a boost in performance over a single socket dual core chip.

Sure, but reduced latency between CPU communication because both cores communicate on-chip means the dual core pulls ahead in performance in many applications including gaming.

 

[ir0nw0lf]

Although this thread seems to have partially derailed (keep it on topic folks ), bottom line is that this is a darn good deal for a Opteron 240! I had a chance to get my hands on a 6 month old dual Opteron mobo for $100. I declined the offer as Opteron 2xx CPU's were a little more than I wanted to pay. In hindsight, I should have bought the board. This would have been a good cheap upgrade for one of my servers at work. I'm tempted to bite and get a pair of these 240's and hunt fleaBay for a cheap dually mobo.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: sm8000

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: moonsite
Does it require a socket 940 board?

Yes

EDIT:
I should also ADD that two single core opterons are faster than one Dual Core Opteron by 10%. Both have two CPU's but the twin single core chips each have their own front side bus.

Opterons do not have a front side bus. All AMD64 architecture eliminates the FSB by putting the memory controller in the CPU.

Did you mean to say HTT (HyperTransport) instead?

I know that and that is what I meant to say. Some call it an Intergrated FSB. The differance between a Single dual core opteron and two single core opterons is the two single core chips each have thier own memory controller, giving the two single chips a boost in performance over a single socket dual core chip.

Sure, but reduced latency between CPU communication because both cores communicate on-chip means the dual core pulls ahead in performance in many applications including gaming.

CPU 0 does most of the work and there are only two games that can take advantage of multithreading- Quake 3 and during development carmack said Doom3 would support it too. In games the second CPU would reamain idle (or off if Cool and Quiet is on). So chip to chip latency is a totaly irrealavent topic.

Two sockets or one socket: Chip latency is about the same if you have two CPUs on one socket or two. Correct me if I am wrong, but Dual Core Athlons do not use hypertransport to comunicate like two single core opteron 240's do. The AMD Crossbar is not a Hypertransport connection.

I quote AMD in saying that TWO 248's (2.2GHz) are faster than one dual core 275 (2.2GHz) by 10%. Chip latency or not two soclkets are faster than one.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Googer
I quote AMD in saying that TWO 248's (2.2GHz) are faster than one dual core 275 (2.2GHz) by 10%. Chip latency or not two soclkets are faster than one.

And I point you to a credible review that shows an X2 4200+ outperforming dual 248 (both running at 2.2 Ghz) in almost every single benchmark by a margin of 1-10% or more.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=5

This isn't really a disputed fact. All I'm trying to do is clear up that bit of misinformation, not get into a debate.

 

[newbs]

Well here is my 2 cents I have four dual opteron systems and a single cpu opteron box and one of them is a dual 240 wixh actually performs at almost the exact same speed as my dual xeon 2.8 with hypethreading(4 virtual cpus) in apps like cinbench rendering differances of less than 4-5 sec also the power consumption on the opters is far lower thats a good reason to upgrade alone my power bill thanks me and my cabinet is much cooler now thanks cool and quit.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: newbs
Well here is my 2 cents I have four dual opteron systems and a single cpu opteron box and one of them is a dual 240 wixh actually performs at almost the exact same speed as my dual xeon 2.8 with hypethreading(4 virtual cpus) in apps like cinbench rendering differances of less than 4-5 sec also the power consumption on the opters is far lower thats a good reason to upgrade alone my power bill thanks me and my cabinet is much cooler now thanks cool and quit.

That might be one of the most informative run-on sentences ever Seriously though, thanks for the info.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Googer
I quote AMD in saying that TWO 248's (2.2GHz) are faster than one dual core 275 (2.2GHz) by 10%. Chip latency or not two soclkets are faster than one.

And I point you to a credible review that shows an X2 4200+ outperforming dual 248 (both running at 2.2 Ghz) in almost every single benchmark by a margin of 1-10% or more.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=5

This isn't really a disputed fact. All I'm trying to do is clear up that bit of misinformation, not get into a debate.

Lets compaire Apples to Apples here- Opterons to Opterons! Compairing an Athlon to an Opteron is like compairing an Apple to an Orange.

It is a given that an Athlon will be faster runing at the same speed as an Opteron, because the Opteron requires the use of slower ram (Registered/ECC).

So that benchmark is semi-flawed because they are compairing an Opteron (Orange) to an Athlon (Apple) AMD said Two single core Opterons are Slightly faster than one Dual Core single Socket Opteron. Find me a benchmark that compaires A pair of Opteron 248 (2.2GHz- Single Core) to a single Opteron 275 (2.2GHz- Dual Core) with both CPUs of similar revision, process/DIE/Transistor Size, and all using the same hypertransporspeed. The old 130nm Opterons used an 800MHz link and newer 90nm chips use 1000MHz Hypertransport links. Big Differance.

 

[Steve]

Why not make a good judgment call on what to spend your money on? If you're going to take advantage to a large degree of what benefits an Opteron system has to offer, buy it. If an Athlon64 is more appropriate for your computing habits, buy it.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Googer
I quote AMD in saying that TWO 248's (2.2GHz) are faster than one dual core 275 (2.2GHz) by 10%. Chip latency or not two soclkets are faster than one.

And I point you to a credible review that shows an X2 4200+ outperforming dual 248 (both running at 2.2 Ghz) in almost every single benchmark by a margin of 1-10% or more.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=5

This isn't really a disputed fact. All I'm trying to do is clear up that bit of misinformation, not get into a debate.

Lets compaire Apples to Apples here- Opterons to Opterons! Compairing an Athlon to an Opteron is like compairing an Apple to an Orange.

It is a given that an Athlon will be faster runing at the same speed as an Opteron, because the Opteron requires the use of slower ram (Registered/ECC).

And the dual opteron setup also had double the ram and PCI-X bus, but it's the best comparison I've seen.

So that benchmark is semi-flawed because they are compairing an Opteron (Orange) to an Athlon (Apple) AMD said Two single core Opterons are Slightly faster than one Dual Core single Socket Opteron. Find me a benchmark that compaires A pair of Opteron 248 (2.2GHz- Single Core) to a single Opteron 275 (2.2GHz- Dual Core) with both CPUs of similar revision, process/DIE/Transistor Size, and all using the same hypertransporspeed.

You claim the dual proc will be faster, so you show me the review.

The old 130nm Opterons used an 800MHz link and newer 90nm chips use 1000MHz Hypertransport links. Big Differance.

Zero difference.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: sm8000
Why not make a good judgment call on what to spend your money on? If you're going to take advantage to a large degree of what benefits an Opteron system has to offer, buy it. If an Athlon64 is more appropriate for your computing habits, buy it.

I agree, for $170 you cannot get a 4200+ dual core Athlon. And acording to those benchmarks this thing is almost able to keep up with the 4200+, it lags by just a few FPS for almost half the cost. Dual Core for less than $200, Hot Deal indeed!

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: sm8000
Why not make a good judgment call on what to spend your money on? If you're going to take advantage to a large degree of what benefits an Opteron system has to offer, buy it. If an Athlon64 is more appropriate for your computing habits, buy it.

I agree, for $170 you cannot get a 4200+ dual core Athlon. And acording to those benchmarks this thing is almost able to keep up with the 4200+, it lags by just a few FPS for almost half the cost. Dual Core for less than $200, Hot Deal indeed!

Huh? I don't see dual opteron 240's in that benchmark - I do see dual opteron 248s (2.2ghz) which get pretty well creamed by the X2 4800+ in gaming. 76FPS in Far Cry vs 90 for the X2 - 54 FPS in UT2004 vs 67 for the X2. Keep in mind this is for the 2.2ghz 248 - the 1.4ghz 240 will be much, much slower. Even the 3800+ X2 beats the dual Opteron 248.

And then there is cost - the CPUs are $170, the cheapest motherboard is $220, 1GB of registered ECC memory is $120. $510 total - You could pick up a $320 3800 X2, a $100 socket 939 motherboard, and 1 GB of RAM for that much.

This is a decent deal if you are bulding a server, a terrible deal if your goal is gaming.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: sm8000
Why not make a good judgment call on what to spend your money on? If you're going to take advantage to a large degree of what benefits an Opteron system has to offer, buy it. If an Athlon64 is more appropriate for your computing habits, buy it.

I agree, for $170 you cannot get a 4200+ dual core Athlon. And acording to those benchmarks this thing is almost able to keep up with the 4200+, it lags by just a few FPS for almost half the cost. Dual Core for less than $200, Hot Deal indeed!

unfortunately seeing as a half decent dual 940 board costs what $210 or so (and it doesnt have SLI so its not relaly a gamer board) + the extra cost of registered ram (you also have a latency penalty of 1 cycle on registered) and probably cost of a EPS 12v server power supply

and the cpus are 240s which are 1.4 ghz, and lets say you get cheap fans at $10 x 2. at the minimum board + chips + fans is $390 or so if you say get an k8n-dl board.


say you get a a8n-e nforce4 board $85 or so, + an athlon x2 3800 (2.0 ghz clock rate, so nearly 50% faster) + savings on ram, + not having to buy fans since almost all x2s are retail. thats maybe $400, savings on ram and psu not added and would probably be just as reliable a server platform.

 

[Googer]

Here is what I am talking about. Dual socket Opteron's have twice the memory bandwith of Single socket chips.
Dual Socket = 12.4 GB/s
Single Socket = 6.2 GB/s

Quad-socket = 24.8 GB/s

Octo-socket = 49.6 GB/s!

http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/8.shtml


Personaly I would take a Pair of 2.4GHz Single Core Opterons over one Dual Core 2.4 Ghz processor simply because it has twice the memory bandwith. Also it is a cheap way to get 4gb with out having to run at a 2t command rate. The last time I checked Crucial.com Registered ECC was only $5-10 more than non ECC unbufferd 512MB DIMM(s).

http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_wme.gif
http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_rox.gif
http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_zip.gif

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Googer
Here is what I am talking about. Dual socket Opteron's have twice the memory bandwith of Single socket chips.
Dual Socket = 12.4 GB/s
Single Socket = 6.2 GB/s

Quad-socket = 24.8 GB/s

Octo-socket = 49.6 GB/s!

http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/8.shtml


Personaly I would take a Pair of 2.4GHz Single Core Opterons over one Dual Core 2.4 Ghz processor simply because it has twice the memory bandwith. Also it is a cheap way to get 4gb with out having to run at a 2t command rate. The last time I checked Crucial.com Registered ECC was only $5-10 more than non ECC unbufferd 512MB DIMM(s).

http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_wme.gif
http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_rox.gif
http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_zip.gif

on the k8n-dl it is double bandwidth, some other boards it is not.

besides it isnt going to be the biggest bottleneck to this anyway. maybe if you had dual dual cores it would be an issue, but dual single cores it probably doesnt matter.


plus the chips we are talking about are 1.4 ghz vs. the cheapest x2 which is 2.0 ghz. its not like the 3800+ is a 1.4 ghz cpu. if that were the case, i'd say the opterons were better deal.

the lostcircuits charts you have are a tad unfair as well as dual opteron 252s run at 2.6 ghz while a x2 4800 only runs at 2.4ghz.

that would be where the majority of the encoding speed increase would be coming from.

 

[Googer]

plus the chips we are talking about are 1.4 ghz vs. the cheapest x2 which is 2.0 ghz. its not like the 3800+ is a 1.4 ghz cpu. if that were the case, i'd say the opterons were better deal.

the lostcircuits charts you have are a tad unfair as well as dual opteron 252s run at 2.6 ghz while a x2 4800 only runs at 2.4ghz.

that would be where the majority of the encoding speed increase would be coming from.

There are some benchmarks where the 4800+ beats the pair of 252's. In a few benchmarks the 252's were beaten to death by a single core FX55 or 4000+.

No matter how you look at it, this is a great deal, socket 754 Semprons sell at this price this would be the ideal foundation for an internet user who heavly multitasks but does not play games or do any kind of rendering. I have seen Dual CPU motherboards like this ASUS sell for under $200, so it is competitive with single socket 939 motherboards. Anyway that you slice it this is way better than a 1.6GHz Sempron for the same price.


EDIT: this is also a great deal if you need a light duity server too.

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: Googer

plus the chips we are talking about are 1.4 ghz vs. the cheapest x2 which is 2.0 ghz. its not like the 3800+ is a 1.4 ghz cpu. if that were the case, i'd say the opterons were better deal.

the lostcircuits charts you have are a tad unfair as well as dual opteron 252s run at 2.6 ghz while a x2 4800 only runs at 2.4ghz.

that would be where the majority of the encoding speed increase would be coming from.

There are some benchmarks where the 4800+ beats the pair of 252's. In a few benchmarks the 252's were beaten to death by a single core FX55 or 4000+.

No matter how you look at it, this is a great deal, socket 754 Semprons sell at this price this would be the ideal foundation for an internet user who heavly multitasks but does not play games or do any kind of rendering. I have seen Dual CPU motherboards like this ASUS sell for under $200, so it is competitive with single socket 939 motherboards. Anyway that you slice it this is way better than a 1.6GHz Sempron for the same price.


EDIT: this is also a great deal if you need a light duity server too.

The motherboard costs aren't even close to competetive. You can get good socket 939 boards for under $100, the cheapest Opteron board is $220.

With the money you save on a motherboard and RAM, you can get a 3800+ X2, which will kill two of these CPUs.

 

[slackwarelinux]

Originally posted by: sellmen

Originally posted by: Googer

plus the chips we are talking about are 1.4 ghz vs. the cheapest x2 which is 2.0 ghz. its not like the 3800+ is a 1.4 ghz cpu. if that were the case, i'd say the opterons were better deal.

the lostcircuits charts you have are a tad unfair as well as dual opteron 252s run at 2.6 ghz while a x2 4800 only runs at 2.4ghz.

that would be where the majority of the encoding speed increase would be coming from.

There are some benchmarks where the 4800+ beats the pair of 252's. In a few benchmarks the 252's were beaten to death by a single core FX55 or 4000+.

No matter how you look at it, this is a great deal, socket 754 Semprons sell at this price this would be the ideal foundation for an internet user who heavly multitasks but does not play games or do any kind of rendering. I have seen Dual CPU motherboards like this ASUS sell for under $200, so it is competitive with single socket 939 motherboards. Anyway that you slice it this is way better than a 1.6GHz Sempron for the same price.


EDIT: this is also a great deal if you need a light duity server too.

The motherboard costs aren't even close to competetive. You can get good socket 939 boards for under $100, the cheapest Opteron board is $220.

With the money you save on a motherboard and RAM, you can get a 3800+ X2, which will kill two of these CPUs.

Perhaps.. but I still belive that going with dual Opteron 240's is a better investment. Why? Upgradability.

Opteron 140's are just about the slowest possible processor for that socket, and two of them are competing out one of the faster socket 939 processors. What happen when you stick in dual dual core Opterons or dual higher end Opterons later on after prices come down? You get a really fast computer.

Server sockets tend to have longer life cycles, we have had Socket 940 for a long time, and I expect to have it for at least another year or so, because companies like longer product cycles then consumers do.

The ASUS motherboard linked up earlier in the thread also looks great for "future proofing". It supports SATA2, PCIe and all those great new inventions that get us to spend more money. This makes dual Opteron 240's a pretty good investment for a future computer, with great prospects for upgrading it in the future.

Oh.. and Apples to Oranges
Sorry if I missed the point, and please correct me, I know I made a few mistakes somewhere.

 

[TankGuys]

Originally posted by: slackwarelinux

Perhaps.. but I still belive that going with dual Opteron 240's is a better investment. Why? Upgradability.

Opteron 140's are just about the slowest possible processor for that socket, and two of them are competing out one of the faster socket 939 processors. What happen when you stick in dual dual core Opterons or dual higher end Opterons later on after prices come down? You get a really fast computer.

Server sockets tend to have longer life cycles, we have had Socket 940 for a long time, and I expect to have it for at least another year or so, because companies like longer product cycles then consumers do.

The ASUS motherboard linked up earlier in the thread also looks great for "future proofing". It supports SATA2, PCIe and all those great new inventions that get us to spend more money. This makes dual Opteron 240's a pretty good investment for a future computer, with great prospects for upgrading it in the future.

Oh.. and Apples to Oranges
Sorry if I missed the point, and please correct me, I know I made a few mistakes somewhere.

I also think it's a bit of an apples/slightly different apples thing.

I don't necessarily recommend this solution to the average joe consumer. This solution has different strengths than does a S939 configuration, specifically, the ones you mentioned. Going this route and later upgrading to a pair of dual optys would be incredible for certain applications, and doing the pair of 240's for now will nicely tide someone over until they can afford that route.

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: slackwarelinux

Originally posted by: sellmen

Originally posted by: Googer

plus the chips we are talking about are 1.4 ghz vs. the cheapest x2 which is 2.0 ghz. its not like the 3800+ is a 1.4 ghz cpu. if that were the case, i'd say the opterons were better deal.

the lostcircuits charts you have are a tad unfair as well as dual opteron 252s run at 2.6 ghz while a x2 4800 only runs at 2.4ghz.

that would be where the majority of the encoding speed increase would be coming from.

There are some benchmarks where the 4800+ beats the pair of 252's. In a few benchmarks the 252's were beaten to death by a single core FX55 or 4000+.

No matter how you look at it, this is a great deal, socket 754 Semprons sell at this price this would be the ideal foundation for an internet user who heavly multitasks but does not play games or do any kind of rendering. I have seen Dual CPU motherboards like this ASUS sell for under $200, so it is competitive with single socket 939 motherboards. Anyway that you slice it this is way better than a 1.6GHz Sempron for the same price.


EDIT: this is also a great deal if you need a light duity server too.

The motherboard costs aren't even close to competetive. You can get good socket 939 boards for under $100, the cheapest Opteron board is $220.

With the money you save on a motherboard and RAM, you can get a 3800+ X2, which will kill two of these CPUs.

Perhaps.. but I still belive that going with dual Opteron 240's is a better investment. Why? Upgradability.

Opteron 140's are just about the slowest possible processor for that socket, and two of them are competing out one of the faster socket 939 processors. What happen when you stick in dual dual core Opterons or dual higher end Opterons later on after prices come down? You get a really fast computer.

Server sockets tend to have longer life cycles, we have had Socket 940 for a long time, and I expect to have it for at least another year or so, because companies like longer product cycles then consumers do.

Of course by then, AMD will likely have some really nice quad-core socket M2 Athon 64 X4 chips out using dual-channel, low-latency DDR2 to provide the four cores with massive memory bandwidth. I've watched the market for quite a while, and it always seems like the consumer market is moving so fast now that it just isn't worth waiting for the professional-grade hardware to come down to a reasonable price.

Unless you are running a server or a content creation workstation, it seems to me like a much better idea to go with an X2 rather than screw around with a low-clockspeed dualie Opteron rig. This is a hot deal for those that want to tinker around with SMP and possibly try for a decent OC, but not for most people.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Zim
First place I looked was ebay and found these cpus selling for around that price. ebay is great for judging the value of an item, irrespective of its retail price.

EXCUSE ME??? ebay has to be the WORST place to look up current prices on stuff. Most of the time the prices listed reflects prices u could get at a store walking in. If u want accurate price reflection u should just pricewatch.com it and go somewhere in the middle.

 

[Zebo]

This deal is cold. Need $250 mobo and expensive registed/ECC ram and 4 sticks to work proper with full bandwidth!!!

You're cheaper, faster, more feature filled buying a 3800 x2 for $325, 2 x 512 PC3200 value ram and a $65 Asrock mobo!

 

[Zim]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Zim
First place I looked was ebay and found these cpus selling for around that price. ebay is great for judging the value of an item, irrespective of its retail price.

EXCUSE ME??? ebay has to be the WORST place to look up current prices on stuff. Most of the time the prices listed reflects prices u could get at a store walking in. If u want accurate price reflection u should just pricewatch.com it and go somewhere in the middle.

I think you are missing the point. PriceWatch has the prices that vendors are asking. Ebay auctions show the prices that customers are prepared to pay, i.e. the values. Hence the value of these Opterons is about $80. I doubt that this fact was lost on TankGuys when they priced them, in keeping with their fair pricing guidelines.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Googer
Here is what I am talking about. Dual socket Opteron's have twice the memory bandwith of Single socket chips.
Dual Socket = 12.4 GB/s
Single Socket = 6.2 GB/s

Quad-socket = 24.8 GB/s

Octo-socket = 49.6 GB/s!

http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/8.shtml


Personaly I would take a Pair of 2.4GHz Single Core Opterons over one Dual Core 2.4 Ghz processor simply because it has twice the memory bandwith. Also it is a cheap way to get 4gb with out having to run at a 2t command rate. The last time I checked Crucial.com Registered ECC was only $5-10 more than non ECC unbufferd 512MB DIMM(s).

http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_wme.gif
http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_rox.gif
http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/asus_k8n-dl/wb5_zip.gif

Googer do yourself a favor before assuming double bandwidth out performs a crossbar X2 has and look here. http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=8

4200 beats dual 248's all day long. Both are same speed AND 4200 has half the cache half the bandwidth.

As always latency with AMD-64 is king. An opteron 2xx setup has sh1tty latency. Relying on HT to communicate between cores and slower memory interface while X2 uses crossbar (same speed as processor) to communicate between cores and even the cheapest non-ECC memory is faster w/o extra wait state.

 

[TankGuys]

Originally posted by: Zim
I think you are missing the point. PriceWatch has the prices that vendors are asking. Ebay auctions show the prices that customers are prepared to pay, i.e. the values. Hence the value of these Opterons is about $80. I doubt that this fact was lost on TankGuys when they priced them.

While we did note it, Ebay is still not a great indicator of the true value of something.

Ebay purchases differ from retail purchases in a few key ways:

First, you're dealing with a random person, not an established business (typically). While it's not always true, and while this also doesn't bother some people, it does tend to lower the sale price by a bit.

Second, the prices there can fluctuate based on instantaneous supply and demand. Certain items, such as these opty 240's, are not exactly "high demand" items. Thus, the price they sell for in Ebay is indicative of what the people during that 7 day period were willing/able to pay, not necessarily what the market as a whole is willing to pay.

Third, many ebay buyers assume most products there are used/refurbished/grey market or some other slight negative, which also tends to lower the precieved value, even if only by a little.

Finally, many ebay buyers are "bargain hunters" and those who do buy computer parts there are the minority. These two things also skew the prices down.


My point is this: if Ebay is a true measure of what customers will pay, why are retailers able to consistently sell for well above ebay prices? I can easily move a DFI Ultra-D for $120~$130, but I'm often lucky to sell it for $100~$110 on ebay.

Ebay is a good indicator of what you might sell something for, person to person. It is not a very good indicator of what an average retail price of something will be.

 

[Zim]

TankGuys, I would respectfully suggest that you haven't sold too much on ebay. I am an occasional seller on ebay (with maybe 400 sales over last 3 years) and am constantly amazed at just how much people are prepared to pay for stuff. Many times I've walked into Staples/OfficeDepot/OfficeMax/Target/CompUSA/BestBuy/CircuitCity, bought something, and then sold it on ebay for a respectable profit... sometimes over 100%.

If you guys had your heads screwed on you'd be selling 939 Opterons on ebay. A CABYE 146 went for over $350 this weekend (LINK). And yeah, motherboards are 2 a dime, so I wouldn't expect to make money on those.