Price Change on the Opteron 165 - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-29-2006, 07:26 PM   #11 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Kitire
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.
__________________

Flanker is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 09:27 PM   #12 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,453
Send a message via AIM to FghtinIrshNvrDi Send a message via Yahoo to FghtinIrshNvrDi
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Flanker
I'm a Single Core mascot No Dual Core for me, atleast not yet.
I thought I was the only one...

Ryan
__________________

__________________

<b>I'm an unhyphenated American.</b>
System Specs:
Intel Q6600 @ 3200 1.4v
Abit IP35 Pro "The Snake"
2x2gb A-Data @ 800
Diamond HD 3870 512mb


Great FORD TRUCK resource: http://www.fordtruckfanatics.com
FghtinIrshNvrDi is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 09:31 PM   #13 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 765
Default

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.
septoid2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 09:35 PM   #14 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,486
Default

Im too cheap to buy a dual core. . Even if i could, i probably wouldnt.........yet.
Vybuni is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 10:15 PM   #15 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Flanker
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.
NeedAcpu is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 11:22 PM   #16 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Flanker
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.
__________________
Kitire is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 12:01 AM   #17 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 240
Default

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.
__________________
In The Mail!!!!- Athlon 64 3500 @Stock/Abit K9N SLi sAM2/2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 @Stock /XFX G7900GT XXX 520/1500Mhz/74GB Raptor w/ 16mbcache/300GB 16mbcache SATA HD/NEC DVD-RAM Burner/OCZ ModStream 520watt psu/ThermalTake Armor Jr./Logitech EX110 mouse/keyboard
Mk97 is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 03:19 PM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NeedAcpu
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

Quote:
Originally posted by Mk97
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
__________________

Flanker is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.