Amd Opteron or Amd X2

RazielDoomgate

basicaly i need some help desiding on one of these cpus i was going to upgrade to a x2 4400+ but with the realeas of the opteron im not sure if its worth the money or how good it is compared. anyone help?

8T8

Opterons are meant for server/workstations getting one would be overkill for a regular user unless you have plans for either of those prior tasks.

Get the Athlon 64 X2 or if you want performance at any cost get the Athlon 64 FX-60 which is also a dual core CPU but clocked higher than the fastest X2 but frankly I'd think you would be wasting money unless you really, really want the speed.

Dman_15

Do you mean single or dual core opteron?

Dual core opterons all have the big cache (2mb) and will likely overclock to 4400+ speeds and higher and cost less.

It all depends on what your doing, for gaming single core chips are faster but that will change over the next 18 months or so.
If your not multi tasking, pick up an opteron 146 and overclock the hell out of it. You should reach 2.7 - 2.8ghz without much trouble.

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?sku=313936

or

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?sku=313931

8T8

If multi-tasking the Opteron 165 has 2MB L2 cache [1MB per core] as it is a dual core CPU but at stock speeds is behind the peformance of a higher clocked X2 due to it's 1.8Ghz clock speed [bigger L2 cache only helps in certain apps]. So it is a waste of money vs the Athlon 4 X2 3800+ which it trails performance wise and costs more than.

For multi-tasking & gaming you'd be better off going with the X2 4400+ which has 1MB L2 cache per core and is clocked at 2.2Ghz if you dont like the thought of overclocking.

Dman_15

8T8 wrote:

For multi-tasking & gaming you'd be better off going with the X2 4400+ which has 1MB L2 cache per core and is clocked at 2.2Ghz if you dont like the thought of overclocking.

The only reason anyone even mentions Opterons is for their overclocking so i'm assuming the OP has some knowledge in the field.. The 4400+ is €160 more epensive than the 165.

Dual cores perform worse than single cores in games. end of story

8T8

I agree with you single core is still better for a pure gaming setup but I think from his post the OP does not exactly understand what the Opteron is & why its not good value for money if your not overclocking it.

Though the tide is changing and in the long run games will be optimized for dual core CPUs.

aaf

8T8 wrote:

For multi-tasking & gaming you'd be better off going with the X2 4400+ which has 1MB L2 cache per core and is clocked at 2.2Ghz if you dont like the thought of overclocking.

It actually has 2mb L2 Cache!

Khannie

aaf wrote:

It actually has 2mb L2 Cache!

1 per core (s/he did say that)

Khannie

Dman_15 wrote:

Dual cores perform worse than single cores in games. end of story

Not so. I found benchmarks that put dual cores faaaar ahead in Q4 (which is threaded). Linkage.

Just bought a 3800+ x2 myself after seeing those benchmarks. Granted, most games at the moment are not multi-threaded, and will therefore see lower performance than single cored processors, but for future-proofing it looks like you can't go wrong with the dual cores.

RazielDoomgate

tnx for the great reply lads and ladys if any well is seems i'll be going for X2 4400+
again tnx for all the replys tnx for clearing that up for me