X2 vs Opt 939

[BloodyIron]

Im aiming to get a new computer, and im having a tough time deciding whether I should go for an X2 or an opteron 939, I would prefer either way to have 1mb L2 cache for each core.

I am aiming to have a custom watercooling setup using danger den's blocks and stuff, so overclocking is far from out of the question. The reason I want to go with watercooling instead of cheap phase change, is because I want it to be self contained, and also cool my GPU.

any information would be much appreciated!

[mcnbns]

You wanna go cheap? Then it's Opteron 165 vs. X2 3800+. 1.8GHz, 2x1MB L2 cache vs. 2.0GHz, 2x512KB L2 cache. Some of the 3800+s have been clocking pretty well lately, but then again, so have have the 165s. But wait, the 165 has 2x1MB L2 cache...

A little more expensive (any more than this doesn't really get you any more overclocking headroom, and it's arguable if this is even better than 165/3800+) would be to get an Opteron 170 or an X2 4200+. 2.0GHZ, 2x1MB L2 cache vs. 2.2GHz, 2x512KB L2 cache at roughly the same price point. I'm not sure about the 4200+, but the 170s have been doing as well as, if not a little better than, the Opteron 165s, which isn't all that bad.

And because you said you want 1MB of L2 cache per core, I think it's narrowed down to Opteron 165 vs. Opteron 170. The 4400+ (2.2GHz, 2x1MB L2 cache) isn't probably worth the extra money because it won't give you any more headroom. Because that's really what you're looking for. Here it is in a simple equation to help you in your decision:

pwnage = overclock / money

[BloodyIron]

good to know, but i ask myself, is the extra cache worth it?

what are the real differences between optys and x2's dispite cache?

[mcnbns]

good to know, but i ask myself, is the extra cache worth it?

what are the real differences between optys and x2's dispite cache?
Not much. One box has a cooler green. :)

The reason I would go Opteron over X2 right now is the availability of a 2x1MB L2 cache chip in the same price bracket as the 3800+. Before the Opterons, the only way to get 2x1MB of L2 cache was to get a 4400+, and that ain't cheap.

[manomanx2]

I'd go Opty. They clock up to pretty much the same, and the Opty has that 1 MB cache per core you seem to want.

Edit: I mean "they" as in the X2 3800 and Opteron 165.

[ErikaeanLogic]

good to know, but i ask myself, is the extra cache worth it?

I recently upgraded from a 3800X2 to an Opty165. They both clock(ed) at 2.7GHz. In games, I haven't really noticed a performance increase (HL2, BF2, NWN, FEAR) but where I have noticed radical performance improvement is with my DVDshrink rips, PS, and the NWN server game saves (I host/run the game for friends, the saves are now virtually instant). The answer to your question is "it depends" because it really does depend upon how the apps you run use cache. Was it worth the extra $70 bucks or so to do the 165 after selling the 3800 at a slight loss? I didn't think so at first but after only 2 weeks I'd have to say YES! :)

[BloodyIron]

Well one of the big reasons i want dualcore is cuz I multi task like mad, any insight as to if the cache helps me here?

[Absolute_0]

cache makes very little difference

[FlyingHamster]

cache makes very little difference

:stick:

[Absolute_0]

:stick:

I'm serious. I think it factors poorly into AMD's rating system. I'll take 200 Mhz over a bigger cache any day. Cache also seems to make the chips hotter.

Anyway from 3000+ at 3 Ghz to Opteron at 3 Ghz, it's not like i see much difference...

[chew*]

hmmm how bout i settle this with actual results........150 mhz more stomps 1mb l2.........

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42637&d=1137915820

[BloodyIron]

uh i dont mean to nitpick, well i sorta do, but i cant find which one shows that it has 1mb cache versus 512?

i am going to be overclocking these procs dudes, dont they oc about the same or so?

[Absolute_0]

from what i've seen, overclock wise, you're better off with a 512kb X2. Some of the 3800+s are really strong, and i've seen the best OCs on X2s come from the 4600+s.

[BloodyIron]

4600 is a bit pricey, isnt it? :/


from what i've seen, overclock wise, you're better off with a 512kb X2. Some of the 3800+s are really strong, and i've seen the best OCs on X2s come from the 4600+s.

[Absolute_0]

yeah

You either wanna go for a 165 or a 3800+. The 3800+s are popping up for less than 300$ now.

[chew*]

the faster cpu is the 3800 x2 in the screenie.....the opteron is is eva 2000's. 1m l2 limits OC, but helps a little in 3d which is why eva's 3d scores are better. However the raw cpu speed muscles ahead.

[prosbloom225]

4200's only like $50 more than the 3800's now.

[BloodyIron]

can we get some more insight as to the real world differences between opty's and x2s? like say for gaming/multi tasking/encoding?

[sky]

the faster cpu is the 3800 x2 in the screenie.....the opteron is is eva 2000's. 1m l2 limits OC, but helps a little in 3d which is why eva's 3d scores are better. However the raw cpu speed muscles ahead.

hm ok 150 mhz difference to get roughly the same overall score - besides
cpu-score, which apparently is higher on the higher clocked cpu. what i'd
like to know now is what fsb / ram settings both machines were run at - oh
and what card clocks. given that it is shown as a head to head comparison,
i would assume same settings for both machines, but i wouldn't know. can
you post the compare url's of both runs? oh and maybe you two have filled
the project description with all the info - that would really help here :D

judging by my own experiences from the past - the cache will probably
hinder the overclockability, but will aid you in other areas, like for example
rendering. the reason i'm saying this is simple - i'm facing the very same
decision right now, x2 3800 or opty 165. i'll go opteron although it is about
30-40 euros more than the x2, but i want the cache :) (the mobo-quest
is harder than the cpu one, well at least to me). and i will use this system
to do 3dmax and gaming...