Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I have $350 BUCKS....X2, 4000, Opteron???!!!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 30, 2006 1:41:42 AM

I have $350 to spend on a new CPU. What should I go with? I am a hardcore gamer and need gaming performance maxed out.

More about : 350 bucks 4000 opteron

January 30, 2006 1:48:07 AM

then my vote would be to get the best single core you can
January 30, 2006 2:00:54 AM

Assuming 939 motherboard is allready in hand and it is a decent overclocker, get either a single core Otperon 146 and OC the hell out of it (using the rest of the cash maybe for water cooling kit?) or a dual core 165, ya might have to get a few more bucks up but it'll hit at least 2.5ghz per core with the OEM HSF so thats pretty good. If ya can get a $50 HSF then 2.7 ghz is pretty common

If ya ONLY game then the single core is the best bet but if ya do much else and considering games are coming with multithreaded patches the dual core option is becoming more usable for gaming. Already patched are Q4 (Q3 based games may do better as Q3 was threaded some), CoD2 and HL2's source engine. The rest will come soon as it is gonna make their games perform much better.

Hide
Related resources
January 30, 2006 2:13:20 AM

THGC CPU buyer's guide:

CPUs to avoid

3.1.6 Athlon 64 4000+(described in 2.0.Cool, Athlon64 FX55)

Athlon 64 FX55 is the fastest CPU at this momemnt in almost all apps. (except few video encoding and 3D Rendering apps), but the performance advantage is too small to justify it's pricetag. Though the price is not as insane as P4 Extreme Edition, it's still very high. This CPU is not recommended unless you want the best at any cost. Athlon64 4000+ performance is practically equal to Athlon64 3800+, but the pricetag is not. This is why it's not recommended.
January 30, 2006 2:29:26 AM

I'd say an A64 4000+ San Diego core is the best that you can get in your budget.
January 30, 2006 4:21:56 AM

For current games, the Athlon 4000+ beats out the majority of dual core Athlon X2's. Especially the ones priced around $350-450. It's a toss up between the X2 4800+ and Athlon 64 4000+.

HOWEVER, keep in mind that future games are going to take advantage of dual core. So 6-12 months from now, you're 4000+ might not be doing so well when stacked up against a dual core X2.

Just some food for thought.

-mpjesse
January 30, 2006 5:23:11 AM

It seems like there are alot of good choices out there, and I can't screw up too bad.

4000 or an X2 seems like the best from what you guys have said. Either of these will be alot faster than my Intel 3.4 Northwood. Thanks!
January 30, 2006 5:56:52 AM

I'd personally go for an opteron 165 and just OC... you cant get an X2 to beat an overclocked 165 @ the same price
January 30, 2006 10:06:02 AM

a think its wasting with money when you buy X2, if i have 350$ i ll buy opteron and overclocked it... but im still waiting for better cpu then X2
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2006 5:37:25 PM

"This is why it's (4000+) not recommended.
"

That was probably true when it was a $450 processor, but now that prices are down recently, I'd rather have a 4000+ over a 3800+
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2006 5:42:15 PM

"Either of these will be alot faster than my Intel 3.4 Northwood. Thanks!"

I wouldn't count on that, a 3.4 NW is no slouch at too many apps...; if you are upgrading from that performance point, best get an X2 series, and even then, the difference might not seem noticeable unless you do a lot of intense multitasking.......
January 30, 2006 10:13:31 PM

Quote:
Gaming performance maxed out??? Single core 4000+ is the best option, but beware....within the next 6-12 months some games might come out multi-threaded, thus requiring a dual core CPU.


What? Are single core users going to be forced to get a dual core CPU? Or will we experience a great lose in performance?
January 30, 2006 10:36:10 PM

Quote:
Either of these will be alot faster than my Intel 3.4 Northwood.

Only if you consider 15% to 20% more frames a lot.
Mind you if you are going to pci-express from agp, you may as well get a better chip.
You should be able to sell that woody for a good chunk of change. It is probably the best chip Intel will put out for a while.
January 30, 2006 10:43:39 PM

Seriously, get a Opteron 165 and a decent cooler if you can afford it, or just use retail cooler if your budget is tight. It'll still overclock to a good 2.4ghz or so per core, yeilding a FX 53 per core, but I'm sure you'll get a bit more than that. A good air cooler often will get ya upwards of 2.7ghz per core, ore more. Its gonna rock now and even more so when more apps are multithreaded.

Hide
January 30, 2006 11:28:26 PM

As you can see, many many people suggest the 165/$60hsf as long as u OC.
January 31, 2006 1:10:05 AM

It reall depends, like everyone else says the Opteron 165 is better at overclocking than an X2. However the cheapest Opteron 165 is $328 from Newegg, while at Zipzoomfly the X2 3800 is 295. I am not an expert on overclocking, so I am not approaching it from an overclokers point of view. You could use that extra dinero saved from buying the X2 to get a sweet game, or perhapes a really good cooler which may let you OC more, maybe? I dont really know. Me, at this time I would buy the X2, but I am still new to overclocking, if I had more experience then probably the Opty.
January 31, 2006 1:12:58 AM

so even though the opteron 148 has a higher clock speed, the 165 is better? I'm guessing b/c there are 2 cores right?
January 31, 2006 1:35:10 AM

The 148 may be 2.2ghz, and may be a pretty good overclocker itself, but its no dual core. It depends on what you use it for - there are many games/programs currently available that are not yet, shall i say, optimized for dual core processors. I would imagine that, certainly by the end of this year, many many more people who are buying computers now will be on dual-core systems, and that software designers will be working to put out products that take advantage of this - games included. AS somebody has already stated, when this happens, there will be little question which is the better choice.

But even now, the 165 is certainly not a bad performer in games - very, very good, in fact.

k2000k - The x2 price was dropped b/c the opteron was by far the better deal (for oc-ers) than it when they are around the same price. Even at this price, I would seriously hesitate to buy the 3800+, since I could pay about $30 more for a chip that would give me a significant boost over what the 3800 can do. (I do media processing, so I appreciate the extra speed/time saved. Others may not.)
January 31, 2006 1:53:42 AM

on the cheaper 3800 vs 165 opty, the opty will go higher (about 1 full CPU's worth, as in 4800 to what WOULD have been a 5200 if they made it on the 939 system) but also, it has 1MB L2 cache per core instead of only 512KB. Thats more OMPH too. Its worth it.

hide
January 31, 2006 2:34:29 AM

I'm not incredibly crazy about the 512kb L2 vs 1MB L2 - for me it helps a bit, but many other people probably wouldn't notice it much, if at all.

I'm also not too sure about the 165 being "a full CPU's worth", assuming that I get what you mean. Without overclocking, the x2 3800 would probably be the better deal. It's only when you overclock that the 165 is comparable, if not better, than a 4800+.
January 31, 2006 2:42:26 AM

Okay, so the Opteron 165 will the best choice for my budget it seems. Will I see a big difference in my application speed and loading time during games? (versus my 3.4 NW) Does everyone agree it is worth the upgrade? Since it will be a free upgrade since my NW is worth $350.
January 31, 2006 2:47:32 AM

If your northwood will pay for the 165, and you have/will get the required mobo/hsf, etc, and you intend to do serious overclocking on it (>2.55Ghz) then yes, the opteron is your processor. (Dun get forget to save at least enough for a 7800gt, if not the gtx.
January 31, 2006 2:49:38 AM

Opteron 165=2x1.8GHz with 2x1MB cache
Opteron 170=2x2GHz with 2x1MB cache
Opteron 175=2x2.2GHz with 2x1MB cache=X2-4400
Opteron 180=2x2.4GHz with 2x1MB cache=X2-4800

X2-3800=2x2GHz with 2x512k cache
January 31, 2006 2:56:33 AM

No. If you dont OC, the 165 will deliver framerates about on par with what you are getting now. So would the X2 3800.
Really, the only chip that offers any kind of improvement (in that price range) is the A64 4000+
January 31, 2006 4:22:38 AM

Quote:
k2000k - The x2 price was dropped b/c the opteron was by far the better deal (for oc-ers) than it when they are around the same price. Even at this price, I would seriously hesitate to buy the 3800+, since I could pay about $30 more for a chip that would give me a significant boost over what the 3800 can do. (I do media processing, so I appreciate the extra speed/time saved. Others may not.)


I understand that, and I agree with you. I am coming from the position that I dont want to have to drop more dough to get the RAM that you would need for a great overclock. However as I have said I am new to overclocking so when it comes to OC'ing my opinion is worth about as much as 32 Meg graphics card.
January 31, 2006 7:31:15 PM

Honestly, you'll get a bit of an improvement cause of the on board memory controller, but any A64 based rig will do that. The biggest difference is RAM and RAM speeds. Nice 2.3.2.5 2Gig (1Gig x 2) is the sweetest high end option, with 1Gig 2.2.2.5 for a lower end setup. Thats the key to load times, along with a decent HDD. Raptors are of course the fastest but a nice 7200 RPM 8MB buffer drive is good enough if ya got a good CPU and RAM too. Its a combo of it all. The 3.4 NW is a hella Proc though. I sold 2 OEMs earlier this year on ebay for $300 and they sold sooo fast.

hide
February 2, 2006 5:11:54 AM

Ok....I read through.....what won?
February 2, 2006 5:23:10 AM

I'm definitely feeling the Opteron 165. It seems like the best bet so far. Is my RAM good enough for overclocking or will i have to screw around with the timings? I have Corsair XMS 2225 1GB.
February 2, 2006 6:06:38 AM

Is the Opteron 165 considered duo core?

sorry i just looked at newegg and it said duo core in its title....forgive me
February 3, 2006 4:13:07 AM

yes, the 165, 170, 175, 180 are dual core (1.8ghz 1MB l2 per core, 2.0, 2.2, etc) There are single core versions like this though. The 144 is a single 1.8 with 1MB, 146 is 2.0, etc. They clock like bandits too. 3.0ghz on air isnt hard at all. 3.2 on H2O. ive heard the 170 clocks a bit higher overall than the 165 but wont fit your budget. the 165 is gonna give ya tons of bang for the buck overall though.

Hide
!