Price Change on the Opteron 165

[Flanker]

What? Dude.. AMD opteron has DUAL cores, so therefore 1.8x2=2.6GHz, that is better than the 4000 stock, and cheaper i believe. But if you decide to OC, you will get it much, much higher than overclocking a 4000.

Correct me if i am wrong.

Correcting you because you're wrong. First of all, 1.8 x 2 = 3.6, not 2.6. Second, if its a contest between those two, I'd personally go with the 4000+. The quote, "You can overclock Dual Cores to Single Core speeds" won't hold true in this case. The Opteron 165 won't get anywhere near 2.8GHz while the 4000+ will likely reach 3.0GHz.

And the analogy isn't right. You don't just double the clockspeed on a Dual Core. If you're running a game on a Dual Core processor, it will only run on one core. That means that on a stock Opteron 165, the game will run at 1.8GHz, MAX. Now, if you were to run a second game (or a really intensive program) while you were playing the game, then the second program would run on the second 1.8GHz Core. In the Single Core, both processes would be running on the same 2.4GHz. That still doesn't help you too much in gaming though. Theres no way processor will take up .6Ghz of the 2.4Ghz that the processor has, it just won't happen.

Until games utilizing both cores at the same time come out (6-8months, or more) Single Cores will still be the best choice for gaming. Even then, you can't Double the clockspeed. Sure, an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ might beat a FX-57, but not by a difference of 2.8Ghz to 4.4Ghz.

I'm a Single Core mascot No Dual Core for me, atleast not yet.

 

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

I'm a Single Core mascot No Dual Core for me, atleast not yet.

I thought I was the only one...

Ryan

 

[septoid2]

Yeah same here Flanker.

I'm one of those guys who buys his stuff, and won't update or change anything for a good 2-3 years until everything gets outdated, then I'll just buy a new PC.

 

[Vybuni]

Im too cheap to buy a dual core. . Even if i could, i probably wouldnt.........yet.

 

[NeedAcpu]

Correcting you because you're wrong. First of all, 1.8 x 2 = 3.6, not 2.6. Second, if its a contest between those two, I'd personally go with the 4000+. The quote, "You can overclock Dual Cores to Single Core speeds" won't hold true in this case. The Opteron 165 won't get anywhere near 2.8GHz while the 4000+ will likely reach 3.0GHz.

Now I gotta correct you. You're statement, "The opteron 165 won't get anywhere near 2.8ghz" is completely wrong. Many people have reached 2.8 ghz on an opteron 165 and almost everyones opteron 165 reaches 2.6 or 2.7 ghz.

 

[Kitire]

Correcting you because you're wrong. First of all, 1.8 x 2 = 3.6, not 2.6. Second, if its a contest between those two, I'd personally go with the 4000+. The quote, "You can overclock Dual Cores to Single Core speeds" won't hold true in this case. The Opteron 165 won't get anywhere near 2.8GHz while the 4000+ will likely reach 3.0GHz.

And the analogy isn't right. You don't just double the clockspeed on a Dual Core. If you're running a game on a Dual Core processor, it will only run on one core. That means that on a stock Opteron 165, the game will run at 1.8GHz, MAX. Now, if you were to run a second game (or a really intensive program) while you were playing the game, then the second program would run on the second 1.8GHz Core. In the Single Core, both processes would be running on the same 2.4GHz. That still doesn't help you too much in gaming though. Theres no way processor will take up .6Ghz of the 2.4Ghz that the processor has, it just won't happen.

Until games utilizing both cores at the same time come out (6-8months, or more) Single Cores will still be the best choice for gaming. Even then, you can't Double the clockspeed. Sure, an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ might beat a FX-57, but not by a difference of 2.8Ghz to 4.4Ghz.

I'm a Single Core mascot No Dual Core for me, atleast not yet.

Oops, did the math wrong .

I just can't get this dual core thing around my head... When, say Oblivion comes out, if i OC my Opteron 165 to 2.5GHz, it wont run on 5GHz because that is unrealistic... Ugh.

 

[Mk97]

Haha Irish and Flanker agree on something?!

I'll say I love dual cores. I used my friend's 4200 for only a short time and I fell in love. That said, price drop is good news, seeing as I want to buy a 165.

As for how dual core works, technicly you could add them up, but not realisticly.

A dual core is just like having 2 cpus in one. If I had a single threaded game, say HL, and I had a single core 1.8 ghz AMD, and a dual core 1.8ghz AMD (1.8 ghz for both cores) They would run the game the same.

However, if I had a program that I wanted to run in the background, say a bit torrent client or a mental ray render, and I was playing HL on both machines, the dual core would play as if it was only running HL, because one core is running the game, and the other core is running the other programs. Where as the single core would be running all the apps at the same time killing performance.

Now say I have a multi threaded game, the game would take advantage of both cores, running AI code and images from the gpu and the other core could run physics. This would greatly decrease the workload as opposed to a single core processor trying to do all the same.

So as long as the program supports it, you don't need the faster single core. I think it's a good way to do things, because if you look at distributed rendering, several ok computers can finish much faster than one very good comp.

Downside is that if the program isn't multithreaded you'll only find gains in running multiple programs. Tho it's nice to be able to encode a crap load of mp3's and still be able to use the computer, which I currently can't do.

 

[Flanker]

Now I gotta correct you. You're statement, "The opteron 165 won't get anywhere near 2.8ghz" is completely wrong. Many people have reached 2.8 ghz on an opteron 165 and almost everyones opteron 165 reaches 2.6 or 2.7 ghz.

That may have been true in the early days with a good stepping, but a 1.0Ghz overclock on a Dual Core is quite unreasonable, even for a Opteron.

On the other hand, a .8Ghz overclock on a Single Core 3700+ is almost guaranteed. Same performance in games, but for $100 less

Haha Irish and Flanker agree on something?!

Actually, that videocard thing was the only thing we disagreed on

Nice to see there are other Single Core supporters on here