opteron 175

[GIBSON]

Well, I saw one for sale. I was curious as to how they perform compared to an evenly clocked (202Ghz) A64X2?

[werty316]

Not much considering the only real difference is the larger cache. It would to good get if it was cheap.

[GIBSON]

How come they cost so much more then?

[werty316]

I think its because Opterons were mainly used for servers and they are based off of the FX chips but with the CPU mutiplier locked. Having the larger cache affects the price too. I don't think its really worth getting a S939 Opteron since the X2 went through a price drop.

[GIBSON]

Well, it's currently on ebay so I'll see where the prices are going. I made a bid atm it's at 75€. You can't call that expensive now can you :) I'm rather confident I won't get it though, it still has 6 days to go so prices will probably be ramping up. I'll watch it closely though, the X2 4400+ is still priced 213€ so...

[PP Mguire]

Actualy no they are so much more because you can get a good OC of up to 2.6 or 2.8 on stock air if you have the right stepping. Also, chips with more cache are more in price anyways.

[Xero (1)ne]

opterons are different from the 64 chips because they have 3 HTT I/O pipes @ 1000mhz each instead of 1 at 2000mhz,:-D

[werty316]

Actualy no they are so much more because you can get a good OC of up to 2.6 or 2.8 on stock air if you have the right stepping. Also, chips with more cache are more in price anyways.
The OC'ing ability of a CPU has nothing to do with the price of a CPU and the only thing true in your reply is the cache.

[PP Mguire]

Actualy the price refers to how much stress testing they go through because they ARE Opterons and they are used for servers. Thats why they can OC much more and because they have to be on the line so much longer and have to be produced so much better instead of just ship out in an instant they have to cost more. So actualy, my whole post is true.

[werty316]

The OC'ing part is not true but the server part is correct as server CPUs are always expensive. As I mentioned before I think the S939 Opterons are FX chips with locked multipliers hence the high price since FX chips are expensive.

Refering to a CPU OC'ing ability my A64 3000+ can OC'd to 2.4GHz @ 1.4V(stock volts) and 2.8GHz @ 1.7V so why isn't is priced higher?

[PP Mguire]

Yea but can you do that on stock cooling and stock voltage?
The point is, the Opterons are not FX chips they are more because they have been tested and stressed alot more than regular A64s becasue they are meant for servers. With that being said that is why they can OC so much higher on stock cooling and stock voltage. If you put after market cooling on it and you push some volts through it some of them easily hit 3.0ghz. So the OCing part is true.

[werty316]

Stock cooling or not I can push my CPU as far as a CPU that costed $200 more at the time when the Venice E3 chip was released.
The Socket 939 Opterons are identical to San Diego core Athlon 64s, but are run at a much lower clockspeed than the cores are capable of, making them extremely stable. Since this means that they overclock very well, they are in great demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opteron
S939 Opterons are just like normal athlon 64/X2's(single and dual core) except they have been tested and certified to be very reliable(for use with server and workstations).

[eko]

Consider these facts: A server rig HAS to be much more reliable than a simple workstation/game rig. You can't go to a company and say: hell, yeah, we'll sell you something cheap, but, you know, it's not so reliable, so... call us every week.
To have a server paralysed means to lose A LOT of dough. And so, reliability is one of the conditions. Of course, think of the conditions the server has to be kept in: constant temperature, humidity levels, etc.
But a server processor definitely is much more worthful ... to a company.
For us, the mere humans :)) an Athlon overclocked is OK.
Or if you want to, get a Conroe...
honestly, I won't pay that much for an Opteron. But anyway...

[dukeman]

i would get the new intel core for that price. it is just spanking everything amd has out and it cost less. of course after you get a new mb and memory it is not as cheap as a simple cpu upgrade is.

[GIBSON]

i would get the new intel core for that price. it is just spanking everything amd has out and it cost less. of course after you get a new mb and memory it is not as cheap as a simple cpu upgrade is.
Hence why I'm not getting a conroe at this time. They are cheap if you have to build a rig from scratch. They are pricey if you want one to upgrade your current amd DDR rig.

[PP Mguire]

Yea but when these Opterons came out the 148 was cheaper than the 3700+ San Diego and OCed well beyound it and the 165 was cheaper than the X2s and made mince meat of them. This was also well before Conroe was thought of. Soo in that case, when they where popular they where the ****. Then there became a big demand for them and the price went up alot. Now they are not the greatest things around for not such a good price.

[werty316]

165 is clocked at 1.8GHz.
X2 3800+ is clocked at 2.0GHz.

Fopr example clock speed wise the 170 and X2 3800+ are the same but the 170 was never cheaper than the X2 3800+ as far as I can remember.

[Xero (1)ne]

if i had teh money for any 64bit opteron i would definetly go for it
even if AMD's quality kicks @$$ so much already the server edition must be a beast,

[PP Mguire]

Stock clock speed is not what ppl where paying for. They bought the Opterons (S939) when they first came out because they where cheap and the rumor was you could OC the hell out of them on stock cooling and stock voltage. Raise the voltage up more and you have even more OC potential. Plus, the 165 has more cache than the X2 3800+ and always has. Which in turn makes it perform better than the X2. I also know from personal experience that a 165 will OC much further than any X2.

[werty316]

Maybe someone who remembers can shed light on this as it is dust in the wind.
Stock clock speed is not what ppl where paying for. They bought the Opterons (S939) when they first came out because they where cheap and the rumor was you could OC the hell out of them on stock cooling and stock voltage. Raise the voltage up more and you have even more OC potential. Plus, the 165 has more cache than the X2 3800+ and always has. Which in turn makes it perform better than the X2. I also know from personal experience that a 165 will OC much further than any X2.

[eko]

Unless they come out with something extraordinary, I think that AMD's faith is sealed.
Conroe is kicking ass in every direction... No longer AMD is the gamer's paradises.
So unless they come out with some rabbit of the hat, this tricker's a gonner.

[PP Mguire]

Well i would remember becasue i was tied last december whether or not to buy an X2 3800+ or a 165. I did all my research on it not to mention hearing Opteron this and Opteron that worse than the Conroe on the other forums i went to. As soon as somebody got one they where pumping out speeds i couldnt thikn about with my 3800+. Thats why i argue this point.

[GIBSON]

As far as I know there are A64 X2 models that feature the same frequency and cache. e.g. this 175 has the same clock and cache as a 4400+
and eko, please don't get off-topic about conroe vs A64. We all know that, but that's not what this thread it about k?

[werty316]

Unless they come out with something extraordinary, I think that AMD's faith is sealed.
Conroe is kicking ass in every direction... No longer AMD is the gamer's paradises.
So unless they come out with some rabbit of the hat, this tricker's a gonner.
You do realize is has alwasys been a back and forth battle? Any how AMD has the 4x4 CPU coming next year and theres no point on fight a dualcore war since both AMD and Intel have done dualcore.

Would you think AMD could crush Intel since they just moved to DDR2 and I don't see the point on an X2 chip using DDR2.

[Xero (1)ne]

in my opinion intel is BEHIND AMD,
amd has been coming up with new and better stuff, (HTT, origional dual core, now ddr2 and ddr3 quad core, 65NM OMG) intel only has clocks going for it
its funny how AMD outruns intel even if intel has higher clocks, no matter wuht happens im AMD for life, amd is the only one with eyes on the future




plus intels have a crappy logo:wink:

[werty316]

AMD For Life Son!

[GIBSON]

in my opinion intel is BEHIND AMD,
amd has been coming up with new and better stuff, (HTT, origional dual core, now ddr2 and ddr3 quad core, 65NM OMG) intel only has clocks going for it
its funny how AMD outruns intel even if intel has higher clocks, no matter wuht happens im AMD for life, amd is the only one with eyes on the future




plus intels have a crappy logo:wink:
Erm, intels clocks are about the same right now ;) And amd isn't 65nm yet, intel is.

[PP Mguire]

Yea what he said. Im a die hard AMD fan but Intel has them completely beat right now. You can OC Intels cheapest Enthusiast core to beat out AMDs best. Thats a big difference in price considering they both need a new mobo, ram, and video card from the last gen of processors. Intel right now will have quad core out before AMD (This winter i believe was last said) and im sure Kentsfield will pwn w/e AMD has for their quad core AM2 line up. Intel has it this gen and there is nothing AMD can do about it.

[GIBSON]

Actually I thought I read somewhere that amd aborted those plans and is focusing on K8L right now and the die-shrink to 65nm. To catch up with intel again.

[Xero (1)ne]

i thought the intels were 90nm still...oh well:roll:
and i havent heard of the quad for intel either...oh well:roll:
DDR3 WHOOOOOO:twisted:

[darkorb]

here now guys, this is how i look at it. the x2 4200+ vs. lets say the conroe 6400? anyways.

lets say ur loading a game of css. the conroe would probebly load 1-2 seconds faster than the 4200+, but, the 4200+ is like 200+ dollars cheaper. so would u spend the extra money on that cpu for loading 1.5 seconds faster, or put that towards a gfx card or ram. thats how i look at it. and spending $200 bucks just for those few seconds, i dont think is worth it, unless ur going for the "conroe" name and ur doing encoding or other stuff like that

[werty316]

For those out there AMD has always been behind Intel on frequency speed and manufacturing process. Intel went to 90nm, and 65nm process first, a CPU with two onboard cores, and DDR2.
here now guys, this is how i look at it. the x2 4200+ vs. lets say the conroe 6400? anyways.

lets say ur loading a game of css. the conroe would probebly load 1-2 seconds faster than the 4200+, but, the 4200+ is like 200+ dollars cheaper. so would u spend the extra money on that cpu for loading 1.5 seconds faster, or put that towards a gfx card or ram. thats how i look at it. and spending $200 bucks just for those few seconds, i dont think is worth it, unless ur going for the "conroe" name and ur doing encoding or other stuff like that
Thats how I see it also and the Conroe doesn't convince me to spend the cash with I can get an AMD dualcore for less of a price even though it won't perform quite as much.

[PP Mguire]

I spent 375 bucks on my X2 3800+ and the E6300 is now 180 which can OC faster than an FX-62. Reason enough for me, but that was before the price drop. The X2 4800+ thats a different story but yea. Like ive always said before and to all my friends, get what you prefer and it will last you and be really good. I prefer AMD, so ill stick to it even at times like these. Its ppl that do that that keep a company going.

[Xero (1)ne]

load times also depend mostly on har drive speed, transfer speed, ald basicly everything else, the mobo, the ram, everything contributes to the total speed
my brothers Anthlon XP 1.1ghz can run F.E.A.R. at MAXIMUM settings for the cpu it loads just fine,

a CPU isnt the most important part of a computer, its how all the parts work together

[PP Mguire]

Video card, ram, board, HD ect?? (For the FEAT setup)

[GIBSON]

For those out there AMD has always been behind Intel on frequency speed
Since conroe came around the corner that is no longer true. Conroe and A64 are working round same frequencies.

[werty316]

Since conroe came around the corner that is no longer true. Conroe and A64 are working round same frequencies.
You think too deep into what I said. Intel got to higher clocks sooner then AMD; its called progression.

[PP Mguire]

Yea but high clock speed dosent really matter anymore.

[werty316]

Intel has learned that higher clock speeds don't help if the architecture is crap.
Yea but high clock speed dosent really matter anymore.
I am stricky talking about how each CPU manufacturer crossed milestones in the timeline of CPUs so far. view AMDs and Intels histroy and maybe you might know what I mean.

[BigD]

AMD's best move at the moment was to buy ati, ati has such efficient chips and already have 65nm (they will incorperate it in the R600 chips dx10)

also ati has experience with ddr3 were intel doesnt, so the real next gen (i consider conroe as the golden age of this gen) AMD should at the moment be working on ddr3, and if there not the need to be because theyve lost against conroe, but ati's cores are pritty flexible (can run physics, f@H, and grafix) so im pritty sure they could hook up processors that will also run circles around intel....

or at least i hope so

[PP Mguire]

If Nvidia wanted to conjoin into Intel then Intel would have GDDR3 as well if you looked at it that way. Meh i dont really care. I just want to see a new technology be used like Xram or something.