Is a FX-60 Toledo the fastest S939?

[chucky2]

By brother has A8N-SLI Deluxe that's running a 3000+ right now.

I'm just wondering, what is the fastest ever non-OC'd S939 CPU?

From what I can gather over at the interactive CPU charts at Tom's (I know, I know...), the FX-60 is the last king of the hill for non-OC'd S939.

Am I right, or is there something else out there that would be even faster in S939?

Thanks either way!

Chuck

 

[f4phantom2500]

FX-60 is the fastest dual core (2.6GHz). FX-57, I believe, is the fastest single core for 939 (2.8GHz).

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
FX-60 is the fastest dual core (2.6GHz). FX-57, I believe, is the fastest single core for 939 (2.8GHz).

That's totally correct, except for one thing. AMD makes an Opteron version of each of those two processors. Of course, the Opterons have locked multipliers, unlike the FX's, which have unlocked multis.

 

[chucky2]

Thanks f4phantom2500 and myocardia for the prompt replies!

myocardia- You say there are Opteron's that correspond to these versions...

...are those somehow faster?

Chuck

 

[myocardia]

No, they're identical in every way, except that the Opterons have locked multipliers, and the FX's have unlocked multipliers.

 

[tallman45]

FX-60 is tied with the Opteron 185 with 2.6ghz

 

[chucky2]

Given that the desktop S939 CPU's are probably capped with the FX-60 and FX-57, do you all think because the Opteron is a server CPU, they'll continue to release S939 Opteron updates?

Where I'm going with all this is I'd like to eventually max out my brothers machine CPU-wise, and I don't want to end up missing out on getting a FX-60 or equivalent Opteron...

...but then again, if there's a high degree of likelihood there'll be a faster Opteron than the 185 in S939 flavor, it'd be better to just wait around for that I'd think...

Chuck

 

[myocardia]

There won't ever be anymore Skt. 939 processors. They've already stopped making them, that's why they're getting very hard to find. That includes the Opterons, not just the Athlon 64's. If he's gonna buy one, he needs to be buying one ASAP.

 

[wolfman11]

Yep, they there are some pretty descent combo deals at www.tigerdirect.com right now on the FX-60 and Vista if he's looking to upgrade the OS as well...

 

[chucky2]

OK, after looking more closely at NewEgg's Opteron 185 and the S939 FX's, the difference seems to be that the Opteron's have 1000MHz HT and 128k L1 caches where the FX's have 2000 MHz HT and 64k L1 caches.

In a non-workstation board, does a Opteron 185 really perform as well as a FX-60 if neither are overclocked?

Thanks again, I think this is the last thing I need cleared up...

Chuck

 

[renethx]

Originally posted by: chucky2
OK, after looking more closely at NewEgg's Opteron 185 and the S939 FX's, the difference seems to be that the Opteron's have 1000MHz HT and 128k L1 caches where the FX's have 2000 MHz HT and 64k L1 caches.

As for L1 cache size, the information above is wrong. Read

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADAFX60DAA6CD

FX-60 has 128KB x2 L1 cache. See also

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.aspx?opn=OSA185DAA6CD

HyperTransport is DDR, hence 1000MHz = 2000MT/s. 2000MT/s is often described as 2000MHz (effective frequency). Opteron 185 is identical with FX-60 apart from unlocked multiplier.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: chucky2
OK, after looking more closely at NewEgg's Opteron 185 and the S939 FX's, the difference seems to be that the Opteron's have 1000MHz HT and 128k L1 caches where the FX's have 2000 MHz HT and 64k L1 caches.

In a non-workstation board, does a Opteron 185 really perform as well as a FX-60 if neither are overclocked?

Thanks again, I think this is the last thing I need cleared up...

Chuck

There's a total of one difference between those two processors, no more, and no less. The Opteron has a locked multiplier, and the FX has an unlocked multiplier. They perform the same at both stock speed, and overclocked speed, except one has an unlocked multiplier.er.er.er Anyone else hear that echo?

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: chucky2
OK, after looking more closely at NewEgg's Opteron 185 and the S939 FX's, the difference seems to be that the Opteron's have 1000MHz HT and 128k L1 caches where the FX's have 2000 MHz HT and 64k L1 caches.

In a non-workstation board, does a Opteron 185 really perform as well as a FX-60 if neither are overclocked?

Thanks again, I think this is the last thing I need cleared up...

Chuck

The HT is actually 2000MHz on both, it's 1000 x 2 so you could say either one, but 2000 would be more accurate. The L1 caches are the same (2x128, 2x64 is a typo). Besides the aforementioned unlocked multipliers on the FX CPU's the only possible difference between the Athlons and the Opterons is that it is speculated that Opterons utilize a higher grade silicon since they are designed to run 24/7 in cramped server cases with a bunch of hard drives in a hot closet, which is supported by the Opterons' reputation for generally better overclocking. However, when you're talking about a processor this fast, overclocking isn't really a concern because they're pretty much at the max speed for the current K8 architecture anyway. But you seem to only be interested in running at stock speeds, so an FX-60 or Opteron 185 would be the way to go for you if you want the absolute fastest. TBH I doubt you'd notice a huge difference between an X2 4800 or even an X2 4600 and an FX-60 at stock. Is it really worth the extra money to upgrade a dead platform to the max? By the time the X2 4600 and 4800 are "no good", the FX-60 will suck too, so I really doubt you'd be prolonging a full system overhaul any longer by going with the FX-60 over one of those X2's. But whatever, it's your cash, do what you want. Oh, and since this is the overclocking forum, I'm obligated to remind you that you could just give the X2 4800 a slight overclock to match a stock FX-60.

 

[tallman45]

Although recommendations for X2 4600+ and 4800+ processors are likely more beneficial in theory, it is not going to work as good as getting an FX-60 or an Opteron 185.

The main reaon is neither of the X2's is readily available anyplace for any price. the FX-60 and Opteron 185 can still be purchased

 

[chucky2]

Sorry about that All, NewEgg must have it wrong, or, the FX CPU's that are listed there differ from the FX-60 in respect to L1 cache size.

I fully understand now, FX-60 is the same as Opteron 185.

If I spend a small amout in a month or three, even going used, that will hold my brother for what will most likely be years to come...neither of us needs a machine that fast for anything, we just don't have a need for it.

The Opteron 185 at $335 currently doesn't really sound like that bad of a deal...in a few months, I ought to be able to pick one up for less than $200 and give him a (last) significant upgrade over what he has now.

By Christmas, reasonably priced DX 10 video cards ought to be available that will drop right into his current motherboard, giving him his last upgrade for that machine. That should hold him for 3-5 years at least.

Thanks again for all the help!!!

Chuck

 

[SparkyJJO]

Fastest s939 CPU at stock speeds, yeah. That or the opteron 185.

But my opteron 165 overclocked to 2.81GHz beats it

 

[Job]

Opterons are more fun

Anyone know the highest OC'd Opteron? I suspect it might be possible to push the opterons a bit further than the FX chips as they generally take more punishment

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Fastest s939 CPU at stock speeds, yeah. That or the opteron 185.

But my opteron 165 overclocked to 2.81GHz beats it

Sort of but why would someone OC a 165 and not OC a 185 ? I have 185's running on Value Ram, and did basically nothing to get the to run 24 x 7 at just over 2.9ghz. and that is using the stock Heatpipe/Fan which is the much better version (80mm Delta fan) of the 2 heatpipes that AMD packs with the X2's and even the FX-60 (70mm fans)

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: chucky2

The Opteron 185 at $335 currently doesn't really sound like that bad of a deal...in a few months, I ought to be able to pick one up for less than $200 and give him a (last) significant upgrade over what he has now.

Chuck

Once the FX-60's are gone expect the demand for 185's to be feverish. I doubt they will be around long enough to get down to $200. Look what happened to the 4800+ X2,s

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Fastest s939 CPU at stock speeds, yeah. That or the opteron 185.

But my opteron 165 overclocked to 2.81GHz beats it

Sort of but why would someone OC a 165 and not OC a 185 ? I have 185's running on Value Ram, and did basically nothing to get the to run 24 x 7 at just over 2.9ghz. and that is using the stock Heatpipe/Fan which is the much better version (80mm Delta fan) of the 2 heatpipes that AMD packs with the X2's and even the FX-60 (70mm fans)

Because I paid much less for my 165 and can hit the same speeds as that 185? And I'm not running any expensive RAM either, it won't go much over stock speeds at all.

 

[lopri]

FX 60 vs Opteron 185? Well, I have no clue regarding the price difference, but I'd definitely get the FX. How is Opteron more fun than FX?

Though like myocardia says, under same clock/bus frequencies they perform identically.

 

[nerp]

I'd go with the FX simply because you can OC it in the traditional way and then when you've hit your chipset/memory cap, knock the CPU up a little more! That's my plan. In a few months I'm going to swap out my opteron for an FX-60 and consider this board maxed out.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Fastest s939 CPU at stock speeds, yeah. That or the opteron 185.

But my opteron 165 overclocked to 2.81GHz beats it

Sort of but why would someone OC a 165 and not OC a 185 ? I have 185's running on Value Ram, and did basically nothing to get the to run 24 x 7 at just over 2.9ghz. and that is using the stock Heatpipe/Fan which is the much better version (80mm Delta fan) of the 2 heatpipes that AMD packs with the X2's and even the FX-60 (70mm fans)

Because I paid much less for my 165 and can hit the same speeds as that 185? And I'm not running any expensive RAM either, it won't go much over stock speeds at all.

Better take another look at how a 185 overclocks, it does quite nicely. Better yet no need to mess with voltages