which to buy a 4400+ or opteron 170?

Hesky82 · 28 Jan 2006 at 19:32

exactly you could be unlucky and get a 165 or 170 which craps out at 2.5, 2.6ghz and then find out the 4400+ you just sold managed 2.7ghz or more lol

the fact is you could get a single core for 100 bux and it had more L2 cache to start with and cuz it was a better core than the venice it would guarantee a better overclock 100%

the same cant be said about the x2 optys

kbc · 28 Jan 2006 at 20:36

Prior to the 4400+ X2 which I now have, I was thinking of the Opteron 175 and not the 170 or the 165, as they both had the same clock speeds which to me seems more comparable. ......But back then, for the price you can pay for a 175 which was ~£350 inc VAT and at the time costing similarly to a X2 4400+ or sometimes a little cheaper - perhaps I should've purchased the 175, unfortunately I didn't, and depleting stocks became apparent.

Now OcUK are stocking the 170 and at those extreme prices (that's just my opinion and I know other retailers are doing the same)... it seems I got a pretty decent buy considering I paid less than £320 for my 4400+. Even so, I would never sell my X2 4400+ for an Opteron 170 based on the Opteron clocking hype, if you're lucky you may get the 170 clocking 50 - 100MHz faster than that of a 4400+ X2, but it doesn't justify selling my existing CPU for an Opteron.

MichaelHo · 28 Jan 2006 at 21:54

ok thanks guys, i will stick to my x2 4400+ then.

kbc · 28 Jan 2006 at 22:30

MichaelHo said:
ok thanks guys, i will stick to my x2 4400+ then.

Good decision.

Not really worth selling an X2 4400+ for the sake of having an Opteron 170 under your belt.

Unless you can flog your X2 at a price which covers your purchase of the Opteron 170, then again... you're buying a CPU which has a lower clock and has pretty much the same overclocking potential, give or take a few MHz.

juno_first · 29 Jan 2006 at 00:34

mattio1980 said:
my 4400+ does 2.75 stable but for the pure quility of the core id go for the 170 to surly that will do 2.7, 2.8 think my 4400+ would do more but dont want to go over 1.6v

Same here, 11x250=2750, reckon would do more if A8n-sli-p could >1.50volts. Most fsb chip will do is 270 though; I have tested this by using divider.

Hesky82 · 29 Jan 2006 at 05:14

kbc said:
Even so, I would never sell my X2 4400+ for an Opteron 170 based on the Opteron clocking hype

hype it certainly is m8 :rolleyes:

Hesky82 · 29 Jan 2006 at 05:50

how about saving 100 bucks over a 170 and grabbing a 3800+ ?

it maybe a cache cut toledo core (manchester) but some still overclock

lemonkettaz · 29 Jan 2006 at 10:18

that overclock on air??

kbc · 29 Jan 2006 at 11:24

Hesky82 said:
how about saving 100 bucks over a 170 and grabbing a 3800+ ?

Nice overclock there Hesky82. That's a more worthy buy than spending £360 on an Opteron 170... 175 maybe...

We'll have to see what clock speeds my 4400+ can hit.

easyrider · 29 Jan 2006 at 11:36

kbc said:
Nice overclock there Hesky82. That's a more worthy buy than spending £360 on an Opteron 170... 175 maybe... We'll have to see what clock speeds my 4400+ can hit.

why is that a more worthy buy than buying an opty 170?
If that is the case then its a more worthy buy than an x2 4400.

if its water cooled than that puts the price of that x2 3800 up.Making the "worthy buy" irrelevant.

optys 170 can do 2.8ghz -3 ghz on good air.

Never heard of an x2 3800 doing 3 ghz on air

It seems that a few are a bit bitter thay paid for their 4400's when they would have clearly got the 170 if they were in stock.

it still has 2x 512kb cache and I bet its not on air.

also running prime for an hour is not stable.

12 hrs maybe but not 1hr.

easyrider · 29 Jan 2006 at 11:46

Hesky82 said:
how about saving 100 bucks over a 170 and grabbing a 3800+ ?

it maybe a cache cut toledo core (manchester) but some still overclock

might aswell get an opteron 165 over x2 3800 imo and have the full 2mb cache

both cost around the same.

kbc · 29 Jan 2006 at 11:55

easyrider said:
It seems that a few are a bit bitter thay paid for their 4400's when they would have clearly got the 170 if they were in stock.

No, not bitter at all, at the time of buying my AMD 4400+ X2, the Opteron 175s were in stock and costs exactly what the Opteron 170 costs now and if you have read a few posts up... unfortunately I didn't get the 175 and missed the opportunity whilst they were in stock. I paid less than £320 for my X2 and the Opteron 170 price is a bit OTT in my honest opinion. The only thing I could be bitter about is failing the chance of obtaining an Opteron 175 clocked at 2.2GHz, although the 170 may have overclocking potential like that of the 175, at least I could've purchased a product which had stock speeds more comparable to the X2 4400+.

easyrider · 29 Jan 2006 at 12:07

Well |I got my opty 170 for £300 which is incredible value imo.
But I did get it before amd's price increase.

The fact is that the opty is 15 quid more than the x2 4400 but will probaly clock higher.

So what speed they are at stock is irrelevant imo.

The true jewel is the opty 165 if price is an issue and that is clocked at 1.8ghz.

Most will do 2.8ghz without much fuss and cost around the same as the x2 3800 but with double the cache.

Naffa · 29 Jan 2006 at 12:35

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/AMD_Athlon_MP.html

at the bottom.. looks like San Diego cores to me..

Hesky82 · 29 Jan 2006 at 19:13

phase change, 2.7ghz on air thought not my work but a chums

Hesky82 · 29 Jan 2006 at 19:24

naffa said:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/AMD_Athlon_MP.html

at the bottom.. looks like San Diego cores to me..

dont believe everything you read

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/details.aspx?opn=OSA170DAA6CD

x2 E6 stepping = Toledo core and all opterons are this stepping

E4 stepping = San Diego core and is seldom to single cores only

easyrider · 29 Jan 2006 at 19:48

Hesky82 said:
how about saving 100 bucks over a 170 and grabbing a 3800+ ?

you forgot to mention it was achieved on phase change.

Ahh you did eventually

Hesky82 said:
phase change, 2.7ghz on air thought not my work but a chums

so I see ,the cost of a phase change unit gets you 3ghz on a x2 3800.

So what was your point again?

Might aswell get an x2 3800 over a 170?

people are getting 2.8ghz-3ghz on air with the optys

lol

Hesky82 · 29 Jan 2006 at 20:27

yup, 100 bux for only 100-300mhz extra, that was my point.

realistically (availability wise) its only the 170's that manage 2.8ghz+ on air. unless you have a week 30 165 your max clock on average is around 2.6ghz

again my point was where talkin about a tiny difference in performance as the cheapest x2 can still manage 2.6ghz.

lets face it all the x2 amd chips are worth there asking price, just not the fx60

easyrider · 30 Jan 2006 at 00:48

Hesky82 said:
yup, 100 bux for only 100-300mhz extra, that was my point.

you quoted phase change.....in the end

Hesky82 said:
realistically (availability wise) its only the 170's that manage 2.8ghz+ on air. unless you have a week 30 165 your max clock on average is around 2.6ghz

so what you are saying is unless week 30.

your av. oc is 2.6ghz?

nope.

Hesky82 · 30 Jan 2006 at 01:05

The most common opty 165 steppings are:

CCB1E 0550 VPMW, CCWBE 0547 TPMW, CCBWE 0536 MPMW, CCBWE 0546 MPMW, CCBWE 0550 UPMW

non of these and I mean non have managed 3ghz! some manage 2.5 with the best on high ish voltages seem to manage 2.8ghz max, average seems to sit around 2.6ghz

the early week 30s such as the CCBWE 0534 SPMW are the closed to getting to 3 ghz. the fact is if you have an identical stepping with both the 165 or 170 it will always overclock better in the 170, the week 50 upmw is a good example of this.

why the heck I'm arguing about a coupe of 100mhz i'll never now lol