They perform the same at equivalent clockspeeds, however the feeling was that opteron's are better overclockers. Also all the DC opterons have 1mb of L2 cache per core, while some X2 processors have 512k. My personal opinion is that at the time of introduction both were extraordinary overclockers, but as the fabrication process matured, they were better able to be rated less conservatively, therefore overlcocks are becoming less substantial. In other words, when a CPU is first released (rushed out the door ) it's clockspeed is rated very conservatively (for example a chip that might do 2.8 might be rated at 2.2) in order to avoid the problems and bad publicity associated with a new product overheating/locking up. As time goes on, and more testing is possible, then a chip can be rated less and less conservatively (now for example now a chip that does 2.4 can be rated at 2.2). Chips are always given at least some 'leeway' as far as clock speed ratings because they have to perform well in a variety of situations such as small form factor cases with very little cooling, or in places with high ambient temperatures, ect..........so keeping this in mind with good cooling and a good motherboard you will always get *some* overclock....although you are more likely to get a better overclock early in the fabrication process rather then later (imo of course).
?
Facebook
Twitter