This one ? :D
Printable View
This one ? :D
not this one . it s an 165 and socket 940.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
Edit : I will have Opteron 144 S939 OEM in about 15 days :D
No, picture is from a Socket 939 Dual Core Opteron 165
http://akiba.ascii24.com/akiba/news/...ages786898.jpg
http://akiba.ascii24.com/akiba/news/...ages786897.jpg
ooooooooh, how much $ are we talkin for a S939 165?
i still don't see the point of these, but a 1.8ghz 1MB cache is a dream come true, esp at around 3000+,3200+ prices...
i was wanting to hold out on a 3800+ X2, but the 3000+s were temptingly cheap...
now that these are here, i'm willing to wait for a good 144/146 or even 165 (1.8ghz 1MB DC also a dream come true)
they should be cheaper than or about the same price as the 3800+ (willing to pay a few bucks more), according to Athlon 64 x2 naming conventions they would be the same...
1.8ghz 1MB (165) cache would = 2ghz 512k (3800+ X2)
a few easy steps and it becomes a 4800+ :D
the dual core opterons will not be cost effective.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...l?redir=CPT301
Dual-Core AMD Opteron 175 (2.2ghz) $530
Dual-Core AMD Opteron 170 (2.0ghz) $475
Dual-Core AMD Opteron 165 (1.8ghz) $417
compared to
4400+ (2.2ghz) $537
4200+ (2.2ghz, 2x512kb) $482
3800+ (2.0ghz, 2x512kb) $354
if you plan on getting a 4400+, it might be worth it for the "better" silicon, but the 170 and 165 aren't worth it imo
sorry, the sig is old, i'll change it soon... i came to the conclusion that i don't want to spend that much on a cpu (4400+)
but it doesn't seem too bad.. i mean the $60 extra for the 165 over the 3800+ seems steep, but if you look at the next cheapest toledo being 140 more, it seems like a decent deal... (with intent to overclock)
opteron 175 = 4400+ right? 1meg caches, 2.2ghz
yet the opteron is $7 cheaper...
sounds cost-effective to me, just hard to compare a 512k cache model to a 1meg
the numbers go to your head (i'm a long time duron fan, so i know the effect of more cache is usually negligible, but u can't get around the numbers)
EDIT: also, the 'better silicon' story sounds like BS to me... they aren't going to bin the 165s and the 4400+s or the 144s and the 152s together...
the "opterons are for servers so they need to be more stable" argument is flawed, implies that AMD sells unstable desktop processors, not to mention a non ECC opteron is nothing but an Athlon, the only reason 1xx opterons ever existed is for the 940pin/ecc error checking memory, people who only needed a 1cpu server (or a simple workstation w/ ecc)
EDIT2: if they have better cores, its because they got 1 meg caches, not because "Opteron" is etched into the lid
well, i actually called tritechcoa.com and even tho their site says they're available, they're not, and won't be till Oct. 12th :(
i personally will prolly get a 144, because it is the xp-m of a64(minus the higher multipliers)
i know that moderate tccd will get 300+, and 300x9 1:1 w/ 1mb L2 for ~$140USD is a steal(assuming it hits 300x9)
175 is the way to go.
________
Magic Flight Launch Box
I would have thought the 170 would give the best price/performance ratio, you can keep the x9 multi IMHO :)
144 & 165 all the way :D
common guys let's see some benchmarks.....or I'm gonna have to fly to US/Brazil/Chech Republic/Hungary where ever there is stock and do it myself :slapass:
lol for the last 2 weeks i've been checking monarch like every day for the 165.. let's see about today... nope :(
what a load of :banana::banana::banana::banana:.......local retailer in Australia is quoting USD$660 for Opteron 165 :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: ...............they are dreaming ...............i'm sick of this bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: AMD pricing....it really needs to be regulated
what benches would you like exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
benchmarks, benchmarks!
Forget the benchmarks for the time being and clock for sucker first!!!!!!
:slap:
:banana:
:D
Oh and then after tht clock 4 clock comparisson against other CPU's would be great, LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
heheheheee
heh, all right. i plan on playing around with low voltages for the first couple of days.. start out with how low i can get vcore at stock mhz, and see how it scales with voltage up to stock :D
I can only speak to my own experiences. Have you every talked to someone in AMD? Had IBM and AMD show up on your doorstep and tell you why the Opty's are binned differently? I have and I promise that they spend money testing more thoroughly. Or they lie very well indeed. Either way, they got my attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodcooper
The final retail price of a processor is not based on the costs that went into it, it's based on the market that the chip is selling into and what the competition is offering at the same price point.
I have not had a dead CPU in a single server yet from either the Xeon or Opteron family. That statement is not true of P4 or Athlon servers used in the small offices. I just pulled up the log.... out of 2000 servers world wide we have replaced 37 processor or processor boards in P4 or A64 based small office servers, no Xeons and no Opterons. I went back one year. Most common point of failure is PSU for those interested.
Take the data for what it's worth, my experience may not be yours.
Regards
UnG
I do not have access to play with such huge resouces as you Ugly, only about 15 years experience playing with and building computers and I agree with you 100%...........cheap and nasty or just faulty PSU's account for nearly all CPU, mobo, HDD ect deaths then any other component
I recently cleaned out my spares/junk room after an 18 month buildup and I has 18 'kin PSU's that had smoked themselves and generally taking the mobo ect with it :rolleyes:,..................it seems they do not like to die alone :fact: :slapass:
server's based on athlons/p4s/celeron/sempron are generally using cheaper board/processor/memory and like you said power supply...
up until now, the premium on a motherboard that'd take an opteron or xeon is quite a bit higher than standard PCs... why? quality...
the same is true for power supplies
the chip may not be the only variable in your little comparison of 'bad processor replacements'
in a nutshell cheap servers have cheap parts in them, expensive xeon/opteron based servers have expensive parts in them, now if you don't agree that power supply and motherboards have anything to do with the life of a cpu, then we can end the conversation here
your findings are interesting, and not suprising really.. but they prove nothing of the quality of Opteron chips over Athlon 64 chips
EDIT: do you assume that if such is the case, every 144 should overclock to 154 speeds?
i doubt it,
but it doesn't make me want a 144 any less :slobber:
Indeed my finding proves nothing, neither does your supposition that consumer grade and server grade chips are treated the same. Based on evidence at hand and first hand discussions with the companies involved, I'm inclined to believe they are treated differently. You of course may believe what you like, I am not forcing my opinion on you, just counterweighting your theory with my own experiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodcooper
UnG
I agree with Ugly and Grey in the opinion that server cpu's should be of slightly higher quality, i mean they are desinged to be run all day and night in confined spaces and handle ooodles of processing.
Although i agree thats its all speculation as AMD could be cheap and hope thier production methods are good enough quality for rebranding consumer cpu's to server cpu's. If that makes sense :)
Well I got some info for peeps in the UK,
My favourite online retailer is pre-selling these, estimated date of arrival the 27th Sept.
CPUCity sells Opteron 144 :D
Not a bad price I must say, a little more expensive than a 3000+ Venice but if they clock well then will be a real bargain!!
i meant to say OC the crap out of it and do some SuperPI/Mod1.4 runs :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ozzimark