Petition: X2 3800+ Vs Opteron 170 in real world

[fricoberto]

Hello friends, I need yours experiencie and results of two processor, X2 3800+ Vs Opteron 170, with real programs, no sintetics benchmarks, like video compression or 3dStudio.

Somebody can help me?

[KaptainBlaZzed]

There will be almost now difference in real world apps. and a very small difference in games.

The main difference is that the 170 has 1Mb cache and has been known to OC better

[X3non]

Opteron 170 is a superior CPU, it's the really FX Dual-Core..
Besides overclocking, the 170 takes advantage in all tests including games.

Opteron all the way... :D

[zenzog]

I never understood what the differentiation between "real world" and "synthetic benchmarks" is.

In these "synthetic benchmarks", the computer does what it would do in the "real world", right?
In 3dmark, it renders all sorts of crazy things and in PCMark, it does run some tests like video compression and stuff.

The only difference is that at the end of the "synthetic benchmarks" you get a (arbitrary) number, I think. I don't know, though.

on topic: what X3non said. :)

Besides, you should choose two processors that have the same cache (and other attributes) before asking for a comparison.

[zir_blazer]

Opteron 170 is a superior CPU, it's the really FX Dual-Core..
Besides overclocking, the 170 takes advantage in all tests including games.

Opteron all the way... :D
What the hell are you talking about? Yet another one that don't know that (Excluding overclocking) Socket 939 Opterons and A64/A64X2 uses the same Cores that with the same specifications performs exactly the same.

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Manchester (512 KB Cache L2 per Core), 2 GHz, Dual Channel)
Opteron 170 (Toledo (1 MB Cache L2 per Core), 2 GHz, Dual Channel)

Obiously that the Opteron 170 got better specifications (Twice the Cache L2) so it will be faster for anything (If you want to compare by Performance Rating Models, the Opteron 170 would be like an Athlon 64 4200+ aproximately). The extra Cache L2 is worth averagely 200 MHz of extra performance.

[shuRe]

:welcome: Welcome to the Forums bud :welcome:

The one you want to go for is the opteron 170, i wouldnt even bother looking at a normal a64 at the mo if you can go with the opteron alternative. They are binned higher to penetrate the server market, so you are most likely to get a higher overclock. It also has twice the cache that improves speed by 100-200mhz (depending on application.

[ben805]

A fair and direct comparison should be the X2 4400+ vs. 170 Opty. clock for clock you won't see any difference though the Opty might OC slightly better, but if you're asking for the best bang for the buck dual core...then get the 165 Opty.

[Mr_Slinky]

i have an opteron 170 on the way so i should be able to give you a decient test bed for it on same boards and all the x2 was hand picked the opty was not but we will see what the egg gets me~!~

[fullup3]

Yea, the opteron will very very likely overclock much better than an x2. Some x2's have done well, but most opterons do very well.

[uOpt]

Comparing 1 MB cache and 512 KB cache. Benchmarks run for both dual-core and single core, also dual CPU socket 940 system.

You can both grab results at the same clockspeed and other clocks from the various charts:

Just today I added a run of my X2 versus my Opteron 175 (last entry).

http://cracauer-forum.cons.org/forum/crabench-cache.html

[fullup3]

Nice page man. That definately took some time and planning!

[fricoberto]

Thanks! I live in Spain and is so difficult buy Opteron 170 or 165.

I see this forum:

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=427073

And think if the difference of X2 vs Opteron.

[X3non]

What the hell are you talking about? Yet another one that don't know that (Excluding overclocking) Socket 939 Opterons and A64/A64X2 uses the same Cores that with the same specifications performs exactly the same.

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Manchester (512 KB Cache L2 per Core), 2 GHz, Dual Channel)
Opteron 170 (Toledo (1 MB Cache L2 per Core), 2 GHz, Dual Channel)

Obiously that the Opteron 170 got better specifications (Twice the Cache L2) so it will be faster for anything (If you want to compare by Performance Rating Models, the Opteron 170 would be like an Athlon 64 4200+ aproximately). The extra Cache L2 is worth averagely 200 MHz of extra performance.
fricoberto asked to compare the 3800+ and the 170, so I told him the truth. The Opteron 170 is a better CPU and beats the 3800+ in all tests...

Opteron's are designed to be the best, so their perfomance is similar to a FX at the same clock, and could be even better. Btw, Denmark is the core of the 170, not Toledo.

[zir_blazer]

fricoberto asked to compare the 3800+ and the 170, so I told him the truth. The Opteron 170 is a better CPU and beats the 3800+ in all tests...

Opteron's are designed to be the best, so their perfomance is similar to a FX at the same clock, and could be even better. Btw, Denmark is the core of the 170, not Toledo.
...And an Athlon 64 with San Diego Core will perform the same that an Athlon 64 FX at the same Frecuency. You're distinguishing the brand name like if just because it got a shining name of "Opteron" it makes it automatically perform better when you're actually comparing the same thing. You got three diferent brand name Processors that will perform exactly the same at the same Frecuency: Athlons 64 with San Diego Core, Opterons with San Diego Core, and Athlons 64 FX with San Diego Core. In what a 2.8 GHz Opteron 154 may be better than a 2.8 GHz Athlon 64 FX-57? Forget overclocking, the Unlocked Multiplier and the price. Just distinguish what brand name can give you better performance :fact:
Venus and Denmark were the Codenames of Single Core and Dual Core Opterons 1xx in Socket 940, but AMD migrated them to Socket 939. However, there are some Venus based Opterons 1xx in Socket 940 that got the BK surfix (http://fab51.com/cpu/guide/opn-s940-e.html).

[X3non]

...And an Athlon 64 with San Diego Core will perform the same that an Athlon 64 FX at the same Frecuency. You're distinguishing the brand name like if just because it got a shining name of "Opteron" it makes it automatically perform better when you're actually comparing the same thing. You got three diferent brand name Processors that will perform exactly the same at the same Frecuency: Athlons 64 with San Diego Core, Opterons with San Diego Core, and Athlons 64 FX with San Diego Core. In what a 2.8 GHz Opteron 154 may be better than a 2.8 GHz Athlon 64 FX-57? Forget overclocking, the Unlocked Multiplier and the price. Just distinguish what brand name can give you better performance :fact:
Venus and Denmark were the Codenames of Single Core and Dual Core Opterons 1xx in Socket 940, but AMD migrated them to Socket 939. However, there are some Venus based Opterons 1xx in Socket 940 that got the BK surfix (http://fab51.com/cpu/guide/opn-s940-e.html).
All Opteron's 939, i've seen use Venus/Denmark core. It could be similar to San Diego/Toledo so they perform alike. I agree with you at this point. But if the cores are really the same (as you said: Athlon 64 San Diego/FX San Diego/Opteron San Diego), how do you explain the overclocking capacity of Opteron's ?
As I sad, Opteron's were designed to be the best so they can reach higher frequencies more easier. The same core doesn't mean all. Some cores are ready to take higher frequencies. Opteron's are optimized for workstations and those optimizations gave him some advantage. I saw a review beetwen a FX and a Opteron at the same clock. I'll find it for you, then I'll post here.