x2 4200 vs Opteron 170

[bengalih]

Ok, so I have read through quite a few threads on this subject here, and there is alot of speculation and not alot of facts. Not to sound ungrateful, but please don't respond my just saying "x chip rules!" or "y chip all the way" or anything that is s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n.

I'm hoping someone smarter than I can tell me really, what's the difference.

Facts:

• X2 4200 is: 2.2GHz, 1MB, 2000MHz FSB

• Opteron 170 is: 2GHz, 2MB, 1GHz Bus,

I've heard the cache debate (100-200mhz more in performance for the higher cache), and the OC debate that an Opteron can easily clock past 2.2. However what do the differences in bus speed indicate?

Rumors:

• Opterons are fantastic overclockers

• Opterons are crappy overclockers

• Opterons are made from better silicon

Basically, I don't think I will OC. At least I don't want to rely on it. I am buying a PSU and RAM capable of helping me do it, but I will probably tinker with it only once I'm happy with my normal system performance.

People seem to use the rationality that I can OC the Opteron up to the speed of the 400 (possibly more) and thus get the benefits of the MHz and cache.
However, couldn't I also the 4200 up to 4600 speeds (or possibly above)?

I'm at the $400 mark, and one of these chips is going to win out. I use my PC mostly for productivity and video encoding (and possibly HDTV playback), and only occassionaly gaming. If I put the rumors that the Opteron is made from better silicon aside, isn't it generally better to start with the faster chip?

Thanks for your input!

 

[Screech]

The 170 will perform the the same as the 2MB/2.0ghz x2 in this test

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=6

and those FSB speeds are really the same, I think.

 

[Mloot]

If you know for sure that you are not going to overclock, then I would definitely get the 4200+. I would only get the 170 for the purpose of overclocking, tbh. There's a good chance that the 170 will clock higher than the 4200+, but it doesn't sound (to me, at least) as if you're the type that would want to take a proc to the upper limits, where the 170 will likely have an advantage over the 4200+.

 

[bengalih]

There's a good chance that the 170 will clock higher than the 4200+

Where does the basis of this opinion lay? I certainly understand the possibility that OCing the 170 will reach or possibly surpass a 4200. But if you OCed both chips, wouldn't the 4200 outperform?

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: bengalih

Basically, I don't think I will OC.

Then dont get the opteron. Theyre not made from better silicone, correct me if im wrong on this but i think theyre simply tested to a far greater degree than the X2 series is. Opterons are server CPU's that are designed to be on all the time, therefore the chip must be sturdy, it must run at a clockspeed that its got next to no chance of crashing at, so AMD clocks the opterons conservatively leaving quite a bit of headroom. Which is what the trusty overclocker will take advantage of. Apart from the extreme testing and conservative pr rating thats pretty much the only difference between the two. The cache dosent make too big a difference as the K8 architcture isnt particularly sensitive to cache size, 512 is enough, more than that wont have a noticeable impact on performance.

 

[RichUK]

The BUS speeds you talk of (HTT) is the same with absolutely no difference in specification. You must be reading from different websites that state 2000 MTs not Mhz, MTs, and others that state 1Ghz operating frequencies for the HTT, this MTs is ?million transfers a second? not Mega Hertz. This MTs is not even a recognised value.

This is derived from the fact AMD claims their Hyper Transport Technology is fully duplex meaning that communication can occur both up and down the HT link at the same time, therefore doubling the amount of transfers a second. This does not change the operating frequency which is always (on s939) set at 1Ghz. This is worked out by the 200Mhz operating ?system bus? multiplied by the x5 LDT multi to equal 1000Mhz or 1Ghz. I will tell you now that there is not one production AMD processor that has a default operating HTT frequency of 2000Mhz or 2Ghz. The fact that the 1Ghz HT link is fully duplex means that it can theoretically transfer double the amount of data meaning it can send 1000 million transfers upstream and 1000 million transfers down stream at the same time on a 1Ghz carrier wave. This is to and from the chipset, and has no impact if even lowered down to 400Mhz effective operating frequency.

The reason websites use 2000Mts to market AMD processors, is simply because of the inherent ?larger numbers = better performance theory? that Intel propagated in the P4 hay day, if you can see where I am going with this. Basically I could get a P4 processor and market it as 10Ghz processor and all the I.T dumbass?s would purchase it because the bigger the number = the better the performance according to Intel. This is relative to the old socket 754 AMD 64?s also, which had their HTT operate at 800Mhz (200Mhz x 4LDT) which would equate to 1600Mts, sound familiar.

Hope this helps.



EDIT: This is in response to your question,

"Ok, so I have read through quite a few threads on this subject here, and there is alot of speculation and not alot of facts. Not to sound ungrateful, but please don't respond my just saying "x chip rules!" or "y chip all the way" or anything that is s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n.

I'm hoping someone smarter than I can tell me really, what's the difference.

Facts:

X2 4200 is: 2.2GHz, 1MB, 2000MHz FSB


Opteron 170 is: 2GHz, 2MB, 1GHz Bus,


I've heard the cache debate (100-200mhz more in performance for the higher cache), and the OC debate that an Opteron can easily clock past 2.2. However what do the differences in bus speed indicate? "

 

[python023]

170 if your going to OC
4200 if it stays at stock