Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/6/2006 2:34:06 PM EDT
What's the diff?

Be gentle, I'm an Intel guy.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:40:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
What's the diff?

Be gentle, I'm an Intel guy.


I assume Opteron is a newer technology. I'm running an Athlon right now. That's the oldest of the AMD technologies IIRC.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:40:47 PM EDT
I think the opteron is hard wired more for server work.
Athlon 64x2's rock
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:41:45 PM EDT
Opteron by far. 148 for single core 165 for dual . both are socket 939 compatible. As far as the benefits go... opterons have a higher cache (1mb vs. 512k) and better memory controller for better overclocking. The single core opterons (at least mine) uses the same core as teh FX57 which costs 900 dollars vs the opterons paltry 200 dollars.

Jeff
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:55:22 PM EDT
Opteron motherboards will mostly use Registered ECC memory. And the memory controller on the opteron is better optimized… If you get a motherboard that supports NUMA your memory performance will be quite good.

The core and cache for the X2/Opteron/Athlon is going to depend on the version you buy. Some X2s use FX cores. Some if the newer X2s will clock better and thus perform better than an Opteron in a single socket application.

The prices fluctuate all the time and you need to do quite a bit of research if you are really focused on “bang for the buck”

Hardocp
Anandtech
And
Tomshardwarre

Are good places to start. Especially the forums.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:59:52 PM EDT
the socket 939 opteron series do not need ecc to run. can use any socket 939 mobo too.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:03:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jhgray2:
Opteron by far. 148 for single core 165 for dual . both are socket 939 compatible. As far as the benefits go... opterons have a higher cache (1mb vs. 512k) and better memory controller for better overclocking. The single core opterons (at least mine) uses the same core as teh FX57 which costs 900 dollars vs the opterons paltry 200 dollars.

Jeff



My AMD64 has a 1mb cache. Some of the lower models do have the 512, though.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:07:45 PM EDT
clock for clock they have a larger cache. the 3200 venice is clocked at 1.8ghz with 512k. The opteron 144 is clocked the same with 1mb l2 cache. if you are going to overclock youll be much better off with an opteron as the cores are cherry picked.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:11:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jhgray2:
clock for clock they have a larger cache. the 3200 venice is clocked at 1.8ghz with 512k. The opteron 144 is clocked the same with 1mb l2 cache. if you are going to overclock youll be much better off with an opteron as the cores are cherry picked.




My 3700+ is clocked factory at 2.2 with the 1mb. Supposedly you can clock it to 2.7 or better with the stock cooling setup.


When I get home and have a chance to build this computer, I will most likely clock it to 2.5 and leave it for a while.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:15:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 3:15:58 PM EDT by mattja]
I'm looking at:

1. Opteron Model 180
2. Opteron Model 185
3. Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800+

Are those comparable and how do they compare to my 2.40 GHz. P4?

BTW, I heard Socket 939 is history. Is that an issue for me?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:15:30 PM EDT
I have the equivalent to you for stock clockspeed but my opteron will do 3.2 ghz stable on air cooling. w
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:16:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
I'm looking at:

1. Opteron Model 180
2. Opteron Model 185
3. Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800+

Are those comparable and how do they compare to my 2.40 GHz. P4?

BTW, I heard Socket 939 is history. Is that an issue for me?




Short answer: they'll rip it to shreds.

I'd go with the 64X2, if I was gonna spend $400+ on a processor.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:18:01 PM EDT
the 180 and 185 are single core and far too much money. Get the opteron 175 which is dual core and cheaper if you shop around. Willl clock to around 2.6 reliably and blow the living shit out of your P4. 4800+ X2 IS NOT WORTH IT. Get the opteron for 480$.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:23:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 3:28:39 PM EDT by TacticalStrat]

Originally Posted By mattja:
I'm looking at:

1. Opteron Model 180
2. Opteron Model 185
3. Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800+

Are those comparable and how do they compare to my 2.40 GHz. P4?

BTW, I heard Socket 939 is history. Is that an issue for me?





Opteron 180 is the same exact processor as an Athlon 4800+ X2. The Opteron 100 series (single socket) dual-core processors are simply re-branded 1MB cache per core Athlon 64 X2 processors. The Opteron 185 is 200MHz faster than the 4800+ or Opteron 180.

939 isn't history by any means. The next platform upgrade for AMD is called AM2 (DD2 support) and it will launch mid-year. It will only offer about a 5% performance improvemement over 939. 939 still has plenty of life left in it.


Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:23:57 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:27:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 3:39:38 PM EDT by clement]

Originally Posted By jhgray2:
the 180 and 185 are single core and far too much money. Get the opteron 175 which is dual core and cheaper if you shop around. Willl clock to around 2.6 reliably and blow the living shit out of your P4. 4800+ X2 IS NOT WORTH IT. Get the opteron for 480$.



4400+ is the same speed as the 175, same dual core and same cache for $458.

I'm pretty sure the AM2 platform should be able to scale better than current gen platform (DDR2 uses lesss voltage and will put less stress on the integrated mem controller).

Plus if you are low noise fan like me (my current system has 2 3volted 120mm fans and a hd as the only thing making noise, power supply is fanless and videocard is fanless(9700 pro)) I'm pretty sure AMD plans on releasing low wattage versions for the desktop on this platform.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:29:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jhgray2:
the 180 and 185 are single core and far too much money. Get the opteron 175 which is dual core and cheaper if you shop around. Willl clock to around 2.6 reliably and blow the living shit out of your P4. 4800+ X2 IS NOT WORTH IT. Get the opteron for 480$.




Opteron 175, 180 and 185 are all dual core.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:30:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 3:35:19 PM EDT by LVMIKE]
64x2 or FX series. FX is pretty much a gaming processor though, but it still qualifies as "fast as hell" in regular Windows apps.

My personal processor is a 3800X2. It's cheap and runs fast for both gaming and windows apps.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:31:42 PM EDT
So, the Athlon 4800+ has 1 mb. L2 cache per core, while the Opterons have 1 mb. L2 cache total (for both cores)?

If so, all things being equal, that would give the Athlon 4800+ the edge, right?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:34:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
So, the Athlon 4800+ has 1 mb. L2 cache per core, while the Opterons have 1 mb. L2 cache total (for both cores)?

If so, all things being equal, that would give the Athlon 4800+ the edge, right?



They are exactly the same, minus the branding.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:35:17 PM EDT
sorry... couldnt edit my previous post. The L2 cache is 1mb per core. Dont spend more than 500 on the proccy. Its not worth it. Go with the opteron 175. It gets you a stronger memory controller than the X2s and the 1mb L2 on BOTH cores. It Also overclocks better for the money.
Jeff
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:59:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
So, the Athlon 4800+ has 1 mb. L2 cache per core, while the Opterons have 1 mb. L2 cache total (for both cores)?

If so, all things being equal, that would give the Athlon 4800+ the edge, right?



The internet is your friend:

Link
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 9:39:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalStrat:

Originally Posted By mattja:
So, the Athlon 4800+ has 1 mb. L2 cache per core, while the Opterons have 1 mb. L2 cache total (for both cores)?

If so, all things being equal, that would give the Athlon 4800+ the edge, right?



The internet is your friend:

Link



I read that, and it seemed to indicate that the 4800+ has 1 mb. L2 cache per core, while the Opterons have 1 mb. L2 total cache.

That's why I came here -- to ask the experts.

Both the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and Opteron 180 operate at 2.4GHz, yet if they are identical, why does newegg want $87 more for the Opteron?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 9:44:14 PM EDT
Because the Opteron is for businesses. Essentially supposedly it passes tighter qualifications than that of desktop parts.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 9:54:54 PM EDT
If you can afford it, the FX chips are the best you can get, bar none. I just replaced my FX-57 with an FX-60 (transferred the 57 to my other machine).

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:03:50 PM EDT
I heard the FX-60 was rad, like the Pentium extreme editions, but I'm not a gamer. I want something mostly for compiling, software dev, and playing a DVD from time to time.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:04:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
I heard the FX-60 was rad, like the Pentium extreme editions, but I'm not a gamer. I want something mostly for compiling, software dev, and playing a DVD from time to time.



Yes it is rad, especially when its got two 7800GTX cards backing it up
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:06:01 PM EDT
SLI?
Top Top