Cant decide between Opteron 165 & Dual Core 3800+

[Anders0n]

Hi guys,

I'll be building myself a new rig soon and i cant decide between the 2..

Are there any distinct adavantages over one or the other?

What about clocking, which one is generally the best?

Thanks

Mike

 

[Goksly]

165 has more cache and is said to use a similar core to the 4400... so its probably better.
Not trying to thread hijack - but i was wondering what people think is better; a 2.5ghz dual core cpu, or a 2.7ghz single core, and also do dual core processors dump out much more heat than single ones?
Thanks

 

[Anders0n]

Thanks Goksly.

So if i can find one, i'll be going for the Opteron. Just need to know how they clock.

Not trying to thread hijack - but i was wondering what people think is better; a 2.5ghz dual core cpu, or a 2.7ghz single core, and also do dual core processors dump out much more heat than single ones?
Thanks

Yea i was just wondering this... what difference would i see a 165 and a 146?

 

[easyrider]

Hi guys,

I'll be building myself a new rig soon and i cant decide between the 2..

Are there any distinct adavantages over one or the other?

What about clocking, which one is generally the best?

Thanks

Mike

The opteron has 2 x 1mb cache @1.8ghz
The x2 3800 has 2x 512kb cache@2ghz
so they perform about the same at stock.

The opteron use toledo core
But depending on the chip you might get an toledo core x2 3800

I would go for the 165 if you were overclocking.

EDIT: Tbh you wont see much difference unless you multitask or encode

 

[easyrider]

oop double post

 

[Anders0n]

I do quite a bit of multi tasking, but is the performance increase worth the extra £100?

 

[easyrider]

well 100 quid is not that much.Now if you had to fork out say 200 or 300 then i would say no.

But a dual opty running at 2.4ghz for example is nice.
It depends what you do with your pc.

I need dual core I encode loads of mini dv and edit stuff etc and the performance is massive.

However when you say multitasking do you mean surfinng the net while listening to music while bunrning a dvd then i would say stay with your 2.7ghz

 

[Anders0n]

However when you say multitasking do you mean surfinng the net while listening to music while bunrning a dvd then i would say stay with your 2.7ghz

Well i wont be doing hardly any video encoding, expect the very rare occasion when i may convert an Avi file to DVD. Apart from that i'll be doing mainly what you mentioned. I also wont be doing any gaming. I just want the pc to be overally fast.

Might be better off with a 146 then??

 

[Goksly]

remember - windows is a multi-threaded environment - press alt/ctrl / delete and see how many processes you have running - no doubt 30+...
So a dualcore cpu might be better.... thats why im asking. Ive got a 2.7ghz opty and realisticly expect a dualcore to get to around 2.5ghz in my rig. Normally i'd go with the 2.7 because i play mainly games, but now with the graphics drivers working well with dual cores im unsure

 

[wam7]

@Xtorsion
IF you can find a 165 I would definitely go with that over the 3800. Should clock higher and has extra cache.

@Goksly
I don't think you will notice too much difference in games between 2.5 and 2.7; you can always try it to be certain. Especially at higher res, AA & AF the GPU is the main determinate factor.

I would go with a dual core as your all round computer usage will benefit (could also play a game while doing something intensive in the background) and more apps/games become multithreaded the benefits will be more manifest. Check with Smids, I'm sure he'll be able to give you better info as I am waiting for my 165 to arrive.

 

[Goksly]

@Xtorsion
@Goksly
I don't think you will notice too much difference in games between 2.5 and 2.7; you can always try it to be certain. Especially at higher res, AA & AF the GPU is the main determinate factor.

Thats what im glad to hear - as Im happy with my current game performance level - just would like a smidge more "smoothness" with general day to day stuff