opteron vs fx/p4

Elimist

Distinguished
May 7, 2005
7
0
18,510
why are opteron's and xeon's not practical for gaming? i see more cache and fsb or w/e, and nobody says exactly why it's worse :( i don't get it.

also why is there no dual motherboards for athlon xp/intelp4/athlonfx?
 

K8MAN

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2005
839
0
18,980
They require registered RAM and tend to cost alot more than the desktop chips.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
>why are opteron's and xeon's not practical for gaming?

You sure *can* game on those machines, but that doesn't make it worthwhile buy for several reasons:
*) both typically need registered RAM, which is more expensive but also slower
*) clock speeds are often slower on the server parts
*) these chips and their motherboards generally cost a lot more

The benefits aren't really there either:
*) more than one cpu doesn't help current games
*) more cache makes practically no difference. Besides, its only some Xeons that offer more cache, and these chips are uber expensive and anyhow slower for gaming than K8s.
*) more bandwith would only apply to SMP opteron, but to take advantage of that, you need a NUMA aware operating system like Windows 2003 server, and I have yet to see games take advantage of this here.

In short, for gaming Xeons and opterons are typically slightly slower and considerably more expensive than desktop alternatives, so it doesn't make a lot of sense if gaming is all you care about.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

Mr_Nuke

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2004
231
0
18,680
Opteron's and Xeon's are made for server/workstation configuration, meaning they are more suited to be called stable. You don't want to see a server crashing. Registered RAM helps to that, but the register reduces performance.
In gaming machines you want speed and performance, therefore drop the registered RAM.