Which processor? For a confused dood - Opt 165 or X2 3800

ruben00

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
31
0
18,530
Ok,

so its been a while since I last built a system....At work I use different systems all the time, P4's with HT, Xeon, etc but these systems are all built for work, and I need to build a multipurpose rig (gaming, photoshop, ms office, watching/burning dvd's)...

so here it is...

Im considering either

AMD X2 3800 or
Intel D 930 or
Intel 651 at 3.4 Ghz which consumes alot less power the the 660 or
ATHLON64 3500+

Im torn between the dual core and sigle core and between AMD and Intel...im just looking for a push in a particular direction....

do you guys think that its worth getting a dual core or just go with the single core? All these processors are around my price range of 275 to 315 so price is not a BIG factor
 

jokersgrin

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2005
172
0
18,680
Go for the AMD!!! better performance per watt in terms of heat. Intel's run hot ( reason the have to bump up the MHZ to compete with AMD!

And go dual core ( you will muti-task better and game ) but instead of the X2 go with a opteron 939, 165/170/175/180 = dual core

I currently run a opteron 165 OC to 2.6 on air and its stable. and I'm out benchmarking a stock X2 4800 with it.

Not that I'm tring to get you to OC you stuff, just that it something you could do if you needed a extra performance boost down the road without investing more $$$ into another cpu.
While others say you don't need a dual core cpu, I beleave that manufactures of hardware and software are makeing the move to muti-threaded products to better improve performance and features so in a sense you would have a good computer for aleast 2 to 3 yrs before you would feel the need to update again...but its just my opinion :D
I'm sure some of the older posters will put their 2 cents in as well and hope they do because they know their SH$%!

good luck :!:
 

tvfreak

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2005
388
0
18,780
Go for the AMD!!! better performance per watt in terms of heat. Intel's run hot ( reason the have to bump up the MHZ to compete with AMD!

And go dual core ( you will muti-task better and game ) but instead of the X2 go with a opteron 939, 165/170/175/180 = dual core

I currently run a opteron 165 OC to 2.6 on air and its stable. and I'm out benchmarking a stock X2 4800 with it.

Not that I'm tring to get you to OC you stuff, just that it something you could do if you needed a extra performance boost down the road without investing more $$$ into another cpu.
While others say you don't need a dual core cpu, I beleave that manufactures of hardware and software are makeing the move to muti-threaded products to better improve performance and features so in a sense you would have a good computer for aleast 2 to 3 yrs before you would feel the need to update again...but its just my opinion :D
I'm sure some of the older posters will put their 2 cents in as well and hope they do because they know their SH$%!

good luck :!:

I want to do the samething as ruben00. People say go with the opreton, and i'm thinking of going to go with Opreton 170 or x2 4400. I do plan to OC but not right away. But I also hear OCing is not good, people had bad experience with OCing and what not. So i'm kinda worried. What Kind of mobo you suggest as well? I want to have sata 2, ata /100 for my older HD that I currently have. Among other goodies. OH and i've been reading that there going to discountinue the Opertons.
 

CPUZ

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
57
0
18,630
Go with the AMD its way ahead of anything Intel can even think of. As for a multitasking PC the AMD dual cores as the best you can get!! And yes it is worth getting a dual core, I would love to get one but i don't have the cash!!
 

jokersgrin

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2005
172
0
18,680
Ok first off the 939 opteron's will be around for awhile, posted a link from xbitlabs.com about just that subject! ( 939 OPTEY"S LIVE ON!!! )

Has far has setup. I give you some choices

Any Mobo with nvidia nforce chipset ( SLI, ultra..recommend SLI)mobo

Abit, Asus, Gigabyte, DFI, MSI are all good mobos and prices very..recommend Asus! but pick what fits your budget and research the features for each mobo that interests you!

CPU! pick your AMD posion :tongue: AMD64 3000 thru FX-57 single core.
Opteron 144-150 single core Opertron 165-180 dual core and or X2 3800-4800 dual core....I would suggest you pick 1 or 2 from each and research how they stack up then decide NOTE: all are socket 939 :!: ...I recommend the opty 165!

Reason I have choosen the opty 165 is a few bones more than X2 3800 with a larger L2 cache,and it will OC easy to 2.6 stable on air whichs out benches a stock X2 4800 for less $$$ :twisted: Ive even read that it could reach the 3.0 with vapor cooling ( just remember to have some good ram when you bump up the bus speed, ddr 4200 from OCZ is a good choice!)

Newegg.com has a good site with lots of reviews and products there, just be for warned that the reviews posted there are mostly hype and some have good opinions but never the less GOOGLE it and look for indepth review concerning the hardware you are intending to buy but would like more info on...etc

good luck 8)
 

ruben00

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
31
0
18,530
so dual core is the choice, but in almost all the charts i saw on THG the Intel D 930 beats the 3800, except for heat and power consumption....

but i've never even seen a review on the opteron proc's...oh, and im not very good at, or even would think of OC anything...I want a powerfull system without the need to OC
 

endyen

Splendid
You have to take the THG benchmarking with a grain of sand. They only use Intel approved benches. Check other sites first.
BTW, unless you go extreme cooling with Intel (at least a water sysem), once the dust builds up a little in the case, the cpu will run with one core throttled all the time.
 

jokersgrin

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2005
172
0
18,680
endyen said

You have to take the THG benchmarking with a grain of sand. They only use Intel approved benches. Check other sites first.

Well looks like Intell has been gettin the shaft, because AMD has been stompin them at there own "Benches" for awhile now :lol:
 

CPUZ

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
57
0
18,630
If you're not goin to OC the PC then maybe go for the 4400+, its a very good CPU, when you don't OC it!
 

DuxSyagrius

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2005
205
0
18,680
The intel 900 series runs too hot. You will have to add 50 bucks for a good cooler. The 900 series is a stop gap measure. The real deal comes out after May. I wouldnt bother with them. The A64 3500 and 3.4 ghz P4 are better values for the money all around (from games to encoding video) but driver improvements may change that in the future. Since price is not an issue, I would get a 3800 even if you dont multi-task. There no real difference between the opteron and X2 line unless you plan to overclock. But if you add in the cost of the opteron and the more expensive RAM, you might as well have gone with a more expensive X2 in the first place. I wouldnt overclock at all until your CPU and the platform it is built around ha become a little dated. But for poops and giggles, there is a common belief in the overclocker community that opterons and "under spec'd" at the factory to ensure reliability where as athlons are packaged at the highest possible clock speed they can get out of a chip at the factory. So the logic is you pay a premium for an opteron to ensure some overclocking. With an athlon 64 you never know if you can get 100Mhz or 500Mhz out of the chip.
 
To be honest here, AMD is the better performer at the moment for the price. As far as stabilty and ease of installation i couldn't tell you that. But from the recent benchmarks i've seen AMD has been kicking intels tail. Not to say i favor one over the other just thats what appears to be the case. Why spend a 1000 dollars on a chip when you can get another for half the price and its faster. They both also do the samething.

The processor you picked, AMD x2 3800 is more than sufficient for your purpose.

Ok,

so its been a while since I last built a system....At work I use different systems all the time, P4's with HT, Xeon, etc but these systems are all built for work, and I need to build a multipurpose rig (gaming, photoshop, ms office, watching/burning dvd's)...

so here it is...

Im considering either

AMD X2 3800 or
Intel D 930 or
Intel 651 at 3.4 Ghz which consumes alot less power the the 660 or
ATHLON64 3500+

Im torn between the dual core and sigle core and between AMD and Intel...im just looking for a push in a particular direction....

do you guys think that its worth getting a dual core or just go with the single core? All these processors are around my price range of 275 to 315 so price is not a BIG factor
 

ruben00

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
31
0
18,530
xxsk8er101xx and DuxSyagrius thank you. And thanks to everyone else who posted here...

I do understand about the stopgap measure...They do it all the time...thats why I was neither too impressed nor happy with the 9 series, so thats why i needed a little convincing, and me being an intel dude since who knows when, i was skeptical to switch...

I was looking to get the P4 651 <-(notice the number, its not a mistake) because it was less power hungry etc, but I think i will now go with the AMD because I know Dual core is the way of the future and I dont want to get caught with my cores down aroudn my ankles :D

thanks all....oh and btw, any good mobo recommendations? SATA IDE, PCIx, GIG Lan?
 

DuxSyagrius

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2005
205
0
18,680
Do you have an AGP card now? Is it decent enough to keep for now? If so, asrock has a mobo with AGP (full speed) and PCI-e. Its a good board. The FSB can go up to 300Mhz but that is not indicative of what the true overclock will be. If you plan on doing the PCI-e only thing, then its all up to you. everyone says DFI so I would stick with that. The board will probobly set you back at least 150. I personally am going for the Biostar TForce 6100. It has a special bios that has built in overclocking settings (10,20,30% etc). It has good reviews and costs 75 bucks.

SATA is good cuz they have some really good HDD for SATA only. Western digital has a 250GB HDD that is desiagned for 24/7 usage. Quiet and costs 105 bucks. I think seagate sucks. But there is not a real difference between SATA 3.0 and IDE. Wait if you can.

All I can say about gigabit lan is that it is faster than 100mpbs LAN. I cant say if it is worth it. I have been using firewire based networks between my rigs for 5 years now. Its fast as hell and basically free. But you are tethered to a 6 ft cable. I use firewire and 100mbps side by side. I dont think the gigabit is worth the cash. The funny thing is that when it comes to transfer of large file, fire performs VERY well compared to gigabit LAN.

PCI-e is the future and there are many things on the horizon that AGP will not have access to. I think now is the time to wait and not buy. With the 7800GT at 280-300 bucks prices cant really go down any further you know what I mean? But that doesnt mean there wont be other sweet spot cards. I cant see the 7600 GT (when it comes out) performing close to the 7800GT. So I dont thikn they can price it at 249 like Nvidia used to price upper mid range cards. i think 199 is where it will stay. And that is a good deal. But the generation after this one will be waaaaay better and most likely cheaper. I think the X1000 series is the same as the GeForce FX series. It just doesnt cut it. I think ATI will pull the plug on it and have a follow up product that will know our socks off. Just like the Geforce 6000 series did after the FX series.
 

ruben00

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
31
0
18,530
One problem...

I dont want to OC, for now, if at all....I never like OC my stuff, Dont ask, I dont know why...I think it was a bad, expensive experience that I choose to block out right now....

anyway....what about asus or gigabit?
 

DuxSyagrius

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2005
205
0
18,680
Smart guy. My take on Gigabyte..... Lets just say this: I lost 2 gigabyte mobos and my buddy lost his all within the space of one month (Socket A mobos BTW). No overclocking involved. They just crapped out. I really like Asus. But I think lately there are other companies that are making better stuff. I dont know what to tell you bruddah. Since you dont wan to overclock, then I dont think you need a $200 mobo. You dont even need some extravagant BIOS. I guess since you arent into OC'ing any DFI or Asus will do I guess.
 

zodiacboyscorp

Distinguished
Dec 28, 2005
116
0
18,680
ddr 4200


NEWBIE HERE


However isn't 4200 DDR 2, and isn't the opteron not compatible with DDR2?

So then
Kingston ValueRAM 1GB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM Unbuffered DDR 400 (PC 3200) System Memory - Retail
Model#:
KVR400X64C3A/1G

Item#:
N82E16820141307

Price:
$82.99

Wouldn't be considered good for the system?
 

ruben00

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
31
0
18,530
Hey,

getting the opteron 165 is cheaper then then x2 3800, but the 3800 is 2ghz and the opti 165 is 1.8...now i heard somebody mentioning something about the ram that the opterons use is different and more expensive, but the motherboards are the same, so whats up?

a side note, i dont plan to OC so i want my system for gaming (BF2, AA) to run with cranked up settings and smoothly
 

ruben00

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
31
0
18,530
So what about the ram, do i need different ram? and since the opti 165 is clocked at 1.8 ghz, how does it benchmark against the x2 3800 (2.0)?
 

linux_0

Splendid
The socket 939 1xx series Opterons use regular 184pin unbuffered DDR SDRAM.

The socket 940 2xx and 8xx series Opterons use registered ECC 184pin DDR SDRAM.

Stick to the socket 939 1xx Opterons and you'll be fine because they use regular DDR.
 

ruben00

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
31
0
18,530
cool thank you

now im almost comming to a conclusion here....

Opt 165 cheaper then x2 3800, but opti is 1.8 and x2 3800 is clocked at 2.0

so how do they compare? THG doesnt have opti's in their proc chart....

and also, please keep in mind that this system is not only a gaming machine, but also a photoshop rig

should i just scrap the whole thing and go single core? maybe a 3700?