Refurb AMD 64 CPUs and More

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
c627627

c627627

Golden Member
Jan 8, 2002
1,155
0
76
If there is no difference between the 940 pin Opteron >>> 1xx <<< and the 940 pin Athlon 64 FX.

http://www.c627627.com/AMD/AthlonXP/


Pricewatch today:

$445 - Opteron 146
$270 - Opteron 144
$221 - Opteron 142
$175 - Opteron 140

Why not just spend $175 (?)
 
K

Krk3561

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2002
3,242
0
0
whats the difference bettewn the opertons that start with a 1 and those that start with a 2?
 
S

Swanny

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2001
7,456
0
76
Originally posted by: Krk3561
whats the difference bettewn the opertons that start with a 1 and those that start with a 2?
Click to expand...

The first number (x00) is for how many CPUs can run together. So an 840 would be the same speed as a 140, but with the extra HT links for an 8 CPU system.
 
P

pxc

Platinum Member
May 2, 2002
2,001
0
0
Originally posted by: c627627
If there is no difference between the 940 pin Opteron >>> 1xx <<< and the 940 pin Athlon 64 FX.

Why not just spend $175 (?)
Click to expand...

Because the opteron 140 runs at 1.4GHz. :p But I see your point. The $445 Opteron 146 runs at 2GHz, just like the $730 Athlon 64 FX-51 and both have 1MB L2 cache and use socket940. :D
 
S

seanbigdealer

Member
Nov 11, 2003
146
0
76


I thought about gettting an Opteron, but the AMD64 can use non ECC Registered memory - and the motherboards are also quite a bit cheaper.

 
P

pxc

Platinum Member
May 2, 2002
2,001
0
0
Originally posted by: seanbigdealer
I thought about gettting an Opteron, but the AMD64 can use non ECC Registered memory - and the motherboards are also quite a bit cheaper.
Click to expand...

That's true for the 64-bit memory interface (single channel) socket754 Athlon 64, but the Opteron and Athlon 64 FX-51 both need registered DIMMs.
 
R

rms

Member
May 5, 2003
46
0
0
Because the opteron 140 runs at 1.4GHz. :p But I see your point. The $445 Opteron 146 runs at 2GHz, just like the $730 Athlon 64 FX-51 and both have 1MB L2 cache and use socket940. :D
Click to expand...


The FX-51 is a 2.2ghz part. The 2.2ghz Opteron I believe is more expensive than the FX. Still might be interesting if you can overclock to 2.2 easily.

rms
 
P

pxc

Platinum Member
May 2, 2002
2,001
0
0
Originally posted by: rms
The FX-51 is a 2.2ghz part. The 2.2ghz Opteron I believe is more expensive than the FX. Still might be interesting if you can overclock to 2.2 easily.

rms
Click to expand...
Oops. My bad. That does explain the price difference. The Opteron 148 (2.2GHz) is $860 and up.
 
D

DavLucMac

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2001
1,084
0
71
so my big question is this: are there small form factor motherboards out for the opteron or athlon chips yet. I've looked around, but I'm out of the loop enough with the 64 bit changeover that I don't know if what I'm finding is good at all.
dav
 
T

Trevah

Senior member
Mar 19, 2002
437
0
0
Originally posted by: pxc
Originally posted by: seanbigdealer
I thought about gettting an Opteron, but the AMD64 can use non ECC Registered memory - and the motherboards are also quite a bit cheaper.
Click to expand...

That's true for the 64-bit memory interface (single channel) socket754 Athlon 64, but the Opteron and Athlon 64 FX-51 both need registered DIMMs.
Click to expand...


Actually the DIMMs do have to be registered but they do not need to be ECC.........
 
EarthwormJim

EarthwormJim

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,239
0
76
Don't opterons use ddr-333 as opposed to ddr-400 for athlon 64's? Oh and maybe these "refurbished" processors had bent pins and Newegg unbent them.
 
W

woodscomp

Senior member
Dec 28, 2002
746
0
0
So what I would like to know....

Why bother with these new AMD's when the P4 counterparts run a third of the price and work just as well if not better?

I made the switch to Intel after the last four years of running nothing but AMD through my business and in my home. Seems like Intel finally got it together and will beat AMD out on this deal.

Oh and by the way unless anyone is running Linux on a 64bit platform there is no argument to the x64 platform at all.
 
B

BG4533

Golden Member
Oct 15, 2001
1,892
0
71
Originally posted by: woodscomp
So what I would like to know....

Why bother with these new AMD's when the P4 counterparts run a third of the price and work just as well if not better?

I made the switch to Intel after the last four years of running nothing but AMD through my business and in my home. Seems like Intel finally got it together and will beat AMD out on this deal.

Oh and by the way unless anyone is running Linux on a 64bit platform there is no argument to the x64 platform at all.
Click to expand...

The FX-51 appears to be the new king of gaming and I doubt it has come close to reaching its potential yet. I do agree though, the intel chips are a better value at the moment.

 
C

Controller

Senior member
Jan 7, 2001
205
0
0
Originally posted by: woodscomp
So what I would like to know.... Why bother with these new AMD's when the P4 counterparts run a third of the price and work just as well if not better? I made the switch to Intel after the last four years of running nothing but AMD through my business and in my home. Seems like Intel finally got it together and will beat AMD out on this deal. Oh and by the way unless anyone is running Linux on a 64bit platform there is no argument to the x64 platform at all.
Click to expand...

The older Intel P4's can't keep up with the AMD 64 bit products. Even the new extremely expensive EE P4's can't keep up with the cheaper AMD products.

Laying hands on the beta Windows for 64 bit is easy enough and has proven to be very stable here. And while beta, I think that MS will let all 64 bit AMD owners download the product for free.

Intel is scrambling right now, as evidenced by their EE chips, but is still sucking hind tit for the time being.
 
H

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81
Originally posted by: DavLucMac
so my big question is this: are there small form factor motherboards out for the opteron or athlon chips yet. I've looked around, but I'm out of the loop enough with the 64 bit changeover that I don't know if what I'm finding is good at all.
dav
Click to expand...

yeah there are a few models. the easy to get one is the gigabyte.


i got mine from monarch computer for $97 shipped.

ga-k8tv800m 3 pci, 1 agp, lan, sound serial ata raid. very stable thus far.

big con of this board, is it has basically no bios controls. not even ram speeds (goes by SPD only)
 
W

woodscomp

Senior member
Dec 28, 2002
746
0
0
Originally posted by: Controller
Originally posted by: woodscomp
So what I would like to know.... Why bother with these new AMD's when the P4 counterparts run a third of the price and work just as well if not better? I made the switch to Intel after the last four years of running nothing but AMD through my business and in my home. Seems like Intel finally got it together and will beat AMD out on this deal. Oh and by the way unless anyone is running Linux on a 64bit platform there is no argument to the x64 platform at all.
Click to expand...

The older Intel P4's can't keep up with the AMD 64 bit products. Even the new extremely expensive EE P4's can't keep up with the cheaper AMD products.

Laying hands on the beta Windows for 64 bit is easy enough and has proven to be very stable here. And while beta, I think that MS will let all 64 bit AMD owners download the product for free.

Intel is scrambling right now, as evidenced by their EE chips, but is still sucking hind tit for the time being.
Click to expand...

So do you have any prrof to back your claims? Like AMD stocks are soaring through the roof... Get real, the AMD counterparts at these extreme high prices remind of the big nad Intel of a few years ago. Seems to me that the tides have turned.

The Athlon FX processor only barely edges out the Intel 3.2GHZ in a few benches. However it costs several hundred more dollars. Then on top of that AMD did nothing more than rebrand there Opteron processor to make this FX processor. So what is wrong with Intel adding more cache to it's Xeon and calling an extended processor?

You read to many AMD fanboy websites.

Up to four months ago I was running nothing but AMD in my home and business. Then I saw the light, and let me tell you the 800FSB on the 2.4C processor is just amazing. I am curently running that processor at 3.0GHZ (goes to 3.2 with no problems) and it is night and day differences between that and the AMD 3000+ CPU I was running on the A7V8XDX. Norton does a complete scan in less than 6 minutes of over 30GB of data. Windows is booted and running within 40 seconds. Simply a much better product than the AMD platform currently has.

 
D

DXM

Senior member
Jul 26, 2003
264
0
0
So what I would like to know.... Why bother with these new AMD's when the P4 counterparts run a third of the price and work just as well if not better? I made the switch to Intel after the last four years of running nothing but AMD through my business and in my home. Seems like Intel finally got it together and will beat AMD out on this deal. Oh and by the way unless anyone is running Linux on a 64bit platform there is no argument to the x64 platform at all.
Click to expand...

Prices are from pricewatch as of 11/30/03:

A64 3200+ : $399 + $30 = $429
P4 3.2GHz : $384

Definitely not 1/3 the price. But yeah, aside from the 3200+ running cooler than the P4 3.2GHz, the P4 does look like a better value at the moment. (Who'd of thunk it?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom