• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

CPU Decisions

Squidge

Squidge

Squidge

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,185
Ok, after a lot of thinking, I've finally splashed out about £800 on an upgrade and bought (along with other stuff) a DFI LanParty NF4 SLI-DR EXPERT, a Seasonic 600W PSU, and a Leadtek GeForce 7800GT 256MB. Storage wise, I've bought a 150GB Raptor.

Now, I'm thinking of a processor to put in this, and yet again, can't make my mind up. I'm torn between the following:

Athlon 64 4000+
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+
Opteron UP 165 Dual Core

I'm thinking not many applications are multithreaded yet anyway, so the Dual core will be pretty much useless and the 4000+ will be the best, but then again my Intel PC at work has hyper-threading where as my current home PC doesn't and I do notice the difference. From all the reviews and benchmarks I've seen lately, AMD is now leading the pack, with faster and cooler chips than Intel (hence the reason I've jumped ship), but AMD don't seem to have HT, so that means a DC chip is required...

Also thinking perhaps I could get lucky and get 3800+ or Opteron dual core and overclock it to 4000+ speeds to get the best of both. What are the chances of this? I don't want to water cool (after soaking a previous motherboard due to a faulty heatsink), so it'll most likely be something like a Freezer 64 HSF to cool it.

Is there any noticable difference between the OEM and Retail 3800? I'd assume one will be just missing the HSF, but I'm not sure. . .

App wise, I play the odd game like F.E.A.R, Quake4, etc, but most of the time is spent writing my own applications and browsing the web. I generally have a lot of apps open at once when writing stuff, and want to get to things as fast as possible.
 
but then again my Intel PC at work has hyper-threading where as my current home PC doesn't and I do notice the difference
Click to expand...
I think you've already made your mind up that you want a dual core, despite trying to convince yourself that it's not needed ;) Get that Opteron 165, you should be able to clock that to 4800+ (2.4Ghz) speeds unless you're unlucky, and it'll cost you only around £25 more than the single core 4000+ (on OCUK). (Do keep in mind it has a 9x multiplier.)
 
So what kind of RAM would be best with the Opteron to obtain these overclocks? I've currently got two sticks of TwinMOS 3200, so don't think they'll be upto the job, but then again, I'm not experienced with AMD overclocking.
 
Any RAM will be fine. Just remember you can use a divider to keep it running close to stock. :)

Definately go for the Opty 165. It'll probably clock higher than the 4000+, and it has the added bonus of a 2nd core.
 
Ok, I'm sold on the Opteron :)

I see for an extra ~£50, I can get the 170 instead of the 165. Which would give me a 10x multiplier instead of a 9x. Would this be worth it, or would you still get roughly the same oc'd speeds?
 
Etaqua said:
Any RAM will be fine. Just remember you can use a divider to keep it running close to stock. :)
Click to expand...
In theory you are correct, but in practice you can sometimes have memory that doesn't function properly while on a divider. . .
 
Squidge said:
I see for an extra ~£50, I can get the 170 instead of the 165. Which would give me a 10x multiplier instead of a 9x. Would this be worth it, or would you still get roughly the same oc'd speeds?
Click to expand...
You probably will get a higher overclock with the 170, but how much I'm not sure. In terms of overclocking the main difference really is the 10x multiplier that gives you a wider range of options when overclocking. As Aceshigh said, if you can afford the 170, get it.
 
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say affording is not the problem - it's the justification of paying that much more.

Anyway, I've just bought the 170, so we'll see how good it really is. Can't give you the stepping as I've already mounted a Freezer 64 on top of it, unless there's another way of getting this info?
 
WatchTower said:
I read nothing but good things about that opty 165. So I'm saving my pennys to get one. How much will my Corsair value 3200 2x1Gb hold me back when I come to clock it. I'd be happy at 2.4ghz
Click to expand...

If you run it on a divider it won't hold you back at all.

I use the same RAM in my 4400+ rig, right now it's running at 218MHz at 2.5-3-3-6 1T @ 2.7V, with the processor running at 2.6GHz (260 x 10).

Hav
 
Etaqua said:
Any RAM will be fine. Just remember you can use a divider to keep it running close to stock. :)

Definately go for the Opty 165. It'll probably clock higher than the 4000+, and it has the added bonus of a 2nd core.
Click to expand...
#

please help me on this one... how does using a divider effect RAM performance? if you can get good overclocks with the cheapy OCuk mem, why spend 150-250 on the performance stuff?
 
It all depends on the application - some are cpu bound, and some are memory bandwidth bound. If you can get a good overclock such as 250 onwards, then the performance stuff will give you a much higher memory bandwidth when run at 1:1 instead of using cheaper ram with a divider to ensure the speed is under 200.

Also, depending on your motherboard, the available dividers may underclock your ram, further reducing performance, and then you have the choice of lower memory bandwidth, or having to drop the bus speed on your cpu so your ram can keep up.

So in the end it's up to you whether you want:

Highest CPU performance
Highest memory performance
or both.

For more info: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Guides/athlon64oc/5.html

The results speak for themselves. Memory bandwidth brings some performance gains to the table in the likes of gaming and video encoding, but it is by no means a killer reason to go out and buy super-expensive RAM. Enthusiasts and record breakers, who are interested in every last drop of performance, will obviously want the 1:1 memory divider, but anyone with generic PC3200 memory will still see very nice gains in performance just raising the CPU clock and keeping their memory at 200 MHz.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Squidge said:
It all depends on the application - some are cpu bound, and some are memory bandwidth bound. If you can get a good overclock such as 250 onwards, then the performance stuff will give you a much higher memory bandwidth when run at 1:1 instead of using cheaper ram with a divider to ensure the speed is under 200.

Also, depending on your motherboard, the available dividers may underclock your ram, further reducing performance, and then you have the choice of lower memory bandwidth, or having to drop the bus speed on your cpu so your ram can keep up.

So in the end it's up to you whether you want:

Highest CPU performance
Highest memory performance
or both.

For more info: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Guides/athlon64oc/5.html
Click to expand...
ah thanks, so im guessing a game like bf2 would benefit more from expensive memory with all the textures being loaded n stuff? else a highly clocked cpu would be waiting for the RAM? i think im beginning to understand but then again chances are i could be wrong hehe :p
 
I've no idea exactly what part of games uses the extra memory bandwidth - I would have thought textures and the like would be loaded into the graphics card well in advance, but I suppose if the games is using more textures than the graphics card has memory for, then it needs to swap them in and out at appropriate places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom