Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-10-2005, 11:24 PM   #11
Fully Optimized
 
ownage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,404
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

dont get a 4400+ get an opteron 165. They ARE THE SAME STEPPING AS X2'S WITH TOLEDO CORES. AND THE OC LIKE HELL.
__________________

ownage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 12:53 AM   #12
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

What I keep thinking is, if Opterons are so good, then why doesn't a majority of power computer users buy Opteron CPUs? Their prices are just as close as the Athlon 64 and X2's.
__________________

__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 01:45 AM   #13
Fully Optimized
 
ownage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,404
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

why you ask? Well, the quantity of the Socket 939 opterons right now is very little. Some of the higher end opterons havent been released yet. But opterons are clocked slower stock wise compared to their sister chips, the A64's. Only a handful of the people that use AMD's are overclockers, they make up of very little of the whole amount.
ownage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 02:42 AM   #14
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

I think Opterons are better served for servers. As far as what amanat69 want for a CPU, stick with the mainstream Athlon 64 X2.
__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 02:51 AM   #15
Fully Optimized
 
ownage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,404
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

actually, the S939 opterons have the same stepping as the X2 dual cores.
ownage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 11:43 AM   #16
Daemon Poster
 
acphenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 667
Send a message via MSN to acphenom Send a message via Yahoo to acphenom
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
if you dont belive in ocing, then its your loss. you can spend more money on a processor while i can save more and spend it on some other stuff.
Loss? Look, man, CPU's are released, they have a warranty, and if they don't work, you have a right to send them back. If you overclock, you're risking throwing that away, along with your system components. And not everyone can overclock anyway.

And furthermore, it requires a lot more power than it does at stock speeds, and that's just plain wasting energy.
__________________
Windows XP Pro 17" LCD Monitor (1280 x 1024)
nForce3 250 Chipset Athlon 64 2800+ w/ C'n'Q
1 x 512MB DDR400 CL3 SDRAM 40GB IDE 7,200rpm HDD (8MB Cache)
nVidia GeForce MX420 64MB PCI On-Board Audio
acphenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 12:02 PM   #17
Fully Optimized
 
ownage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,404
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

if you use an aftermarket cooler, it voids the warrenty already. So might as well overclock and make the best use of it. Uses more energy? Does that mean a 2.5ghz processor oc'ed to 3.0 uses more energy than a stock 3.0 processor?
ownage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 12:10 PM   #18
Daemon Poster
 
acphenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 667
Send a message via MSN to acphenom Send a message via Yahoo to acphenom
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

It don't matter about speed. All I'm saying is that if I had a Venice 3000+, I'd be happy to have that power and also my warranty, and the fact that it consumes a maximum of about, 40 watts, I think. Overclocking it would raise that to about, say, 60 Watts? Not worth it.

It's not like it's difficult to have an energy-efficient but powerful PC. There's just no reason to overclock.

And by 'aftermarket', I assume you mean not using the cooler provided with the CPU, which is my Athlon 64 uses, so...
__________________
Windows XP Pro 17" LCD Monitor (1280 x 1024)
nForce3 250 Chipset Athlon 64 2800+ w/ C'n'Q
1 x 512MB DDR400 CL3 SDRAM 40GB IDE 7,200rpm HDD (8MB Cache)
nVidia GeForce MX420 64MB PCI On-Board Audio
acphenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 12:45 PM   #19
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

My state of mind is personally, it's better just to have everything fast and not even have to worry about OCing. That will cost you quite a bit of money because you are buying the fastest components, but these days, any component is fast if you're not too power hungry all the time. I tend to get like that by always saying to get the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ or get the best 7800GTX video card when in fact, the 7800GT, the 6800GT does a superb job already. Even an Athlon 64 3000+ is a great little CPU which won't be obsolete for quite awhile now. Architecture may change, but clock frequency is enough to do pretty much anything. My PC is OCed, but it also runs very good without the OC too. I just like to get bigger "bench" numbers, lol.
__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 01:37 PM   #20
Daemon Poster
 
acphenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 667
Send a message via MSN to acphenom Send a message via Yahoo to acphenom
Default Re: Which Processor? - Interesting...

I honestly don't care too much about speed. My VIA C3 laptop is slow as hell, and I was thinking of replacing my 256MB stick with a 512MB stick (I only have 1 slot), but then I just thought that it's not worth the risk of screwing up my laptop, and it's useable at least, for my needs. I can do nearly anything but gaming and fairly heavy multi-tasking with it.

Yep, believe it or not. It's really energy-efficient and portable too.

Obviously, my Athlon 64 with 512MB RAM is preferred in terms of performance, but it only allows me to use fancy themes, and have more programs open, really, and it's not a neccessity.
__________________

__________________
Windows XP Pro 17" LCD Monitor (1280 x 1024)
nForce3 250 Chipset Athlon 64 2800+ w/ C'n'Q
1 x 512MB DDR400 CL3 SDRAM 40GB IDE 7,200rpm HDD (8MB Cache)
nVidia GeForce MX420 64MB PCI On-Board Audio
acphenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0