• 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.

AMD X4200 or Opteron 175

Stanman67

Stanman67

Stanman67

Associate
Joined
6 Dec 2004
Posts
474
Am Planning my last upgrade on the 939 mobo and have been considering variouse options but want to keep costs to a minimum. I ideally preferred the X2 4400, but its nearly twice the cost of the X4200 and £30 - 40 more than the 175. If I opted for the opteron, would it be the same if not better than the X4400 and work in a Asus A8NSLI deluxe?
 
Last edited:
Not quite a direct reply to your question, but most people suggest the x2 3800 over the 4200 because it's a great clocker and can reach 4200 speeds with ease.
 
fini said:
Not quite a direct reply to your question, but most people suggest the x2 3800 over the 4200 because it's a great clocker and can reach 4200 speeds with ease.
Click to expand...

Sorry should have said, I wontt be doing any OC, dont know enough and like to hold on to the little hair I have.:D
 
Don't worry about overclocking and get yourself a Opteron 165 like mine.

If you get the right stepping, 712, they are amazing clockers. Mine is running at stock voltage so no danger to the chip on a DFI-SLI DR mobo at 2.9Ghz. That's a 60% overclock.
 
175 performance would be identical to X2 4400+ and should work fine in A8N-SLI Deluxe (check Asus support site for bios updates and CPU support tho it should at least boot even with old BIOS).
 
another vote here for the cheapest dual core s939 cpu you can find. will last you for quite a while and is good value for money.
3800 is not bad at all and cool running. but if you have the money then get the 4200 but its all down to how much your willing to part with.
 
I have both a 175 and an x2 4200 in identical rigs. They perform roughly the same with the 4200 being slightly slower on the few areas its slower, but its literally a couple of seconds. Games are the same in my experience.

The main difference is the 4200+ is the 89w version while the opteron is 110w iirc and the 4200+ idles about 8 degrees cooler than the opteron and about 5C on load.

Personally I would get a 3800+ and clock though like everyone else has said.
 
lsg1r said:
I have both a 175 and an x2 4200 in identical rigs. They perform roughly the same with the 4200 being slightly slower on the few areas its slower, but its literally a couple of seconds. Games are the same in my experience.

The main difference is the 4200+ is the 89w version while the opteron is 110w iirc and the 4200+ idles about 8 degrees cooler than the opteron and about 5C on load.

Personally I would get a 3800+ and clock though like everyone else has said.
Click to expand...

So the extra cache has no difference?
Is it only a few seconds across the board - will be doing some video editing.
 
not really noticeable anyways. Something that takes 1min on 175 takes 1 min and a couple of seconds on 4200+ in premiere (other programs may be different). And to be honest the rest of the junk on the system can have more of an effect than the cache in rendering videos etc. Obviously the more programs running the bigger the difference as its when mutlitasking the cache plays more of a role, but if its just one or two programs open the difference is as I say very little.

I use mine mainly for 3d modelling in 3ds max and they render at exactly the same speed.
 
Stanman67 said:
So the extra cache has no difference?
Click to expand...

The extra cache will help in things like video editing. The extra 512kb per core is meant to equal around a 200mhz increase in "real world" performance.

However the extra cache also increases heat output and limits overclocking.

Jon
 
El Jimben said:
How do you work that out when the majority of Optys clock to 2.8-3GHz??
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, they're still great chips and overclock amazingly.

But the extra cache does mean the CPU produces more heat, which reduces overclocking headroom compared to a 512kb L2 cache per core processor.

Jon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom