Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD 64bit dual core confusion!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 24, 2006 5:44:32 PM

Hi,
I'm looking at the three main dual-cores processors that AMD has:
- FX-60 (Toledo, 939, L1 2x128KB, L2 2x1MB, MMX,SSE1-3, 90nm)
- Optrn (Italy, 940, L1 2x128KB, L2 2x1MB, MMX,SSE1-3, 90nm)
- X2 (Toledo, 939, L1 2x128KB, L2 2x1MB, MMX,SSE1-3, 90nm)

They all look the same on the surface...

While current NewEgg prices list:
- FX-60 (2.6GHz) for $1,025.00
- Optrn (2.4GHz) for $939.00
- X2 (2.4GHz) for $630.00

I'm confused why the FX-60 and the X2 have the same core but have a large price difference. Both cores seem identical! I don't really care about the 200MHz difference.

Is this an apple-->apple comparison? Or are there oranges in the mix.

Can someone please help me differentiate what the differences are?

BTW: Is Windows XP 64bit addition worth the hassle? Is there a big difference in perfomace/stability/compatibilty with XP 64 versus 32bit?


Thanks,
-AM
February 24, 2006 6:42:14 PM

fx chips have unlocked multipliers, overclocker enthusiast chip
Opterons are server chips
x2 is normal consumer chip.


as far as xp 64 it isnt that much, if any, boost in performance...yet. Give software time to catch up and eventually it will have better performance.
February 24, 2006 7:26:12 PM

The Opteron and X2 4800+ are the exact same chip just labeled differently. They score the exact same in benchmarks. I just read a comparison article between the two yesterday, now where was that link....
Related resources
February 24, 2006 7:37:36 PM

Then you must not be using it. I use XP 64-bit and 32-bit. The speed difference for 64 is great, but too few programs support it.
February 24, 2006 7:45:27 PM

Opterons are more expensive than X2s because they hand-picked for maximum stability (they're basically really high-quality X2 chips). As such, an Opteron is much preferable for overclocking purposes. My X2 4400+ runs fine on stock cooling at 2.6 GHz, but you could probably go even higher with an Opteron. As for the FX-60, it's still the same chip, but yield is low on these, so the price is absurd. My advice? Get an Opty and OC it. The unlocked multiplier on the FX processor isn't worth the extra $500.

-Brian
February 24, 2006 7:48:11 PM

I thought that I read somewhere that AMD was using a better grade silicon in the manufacturing of the Opteron chips (the same as used with the FX line) than whats used in the X2 line which contributes to the Opty's higher success marks in overclocking.

Dunno if that's fact or fiction- :?
February 24, 2006 7:51:28 PM

ok you guy's forgot something the fx and x2 both run at 1.35 v and 110w the opty runs at 1.3v and 110w thats the difference between them in terms of wattage and voltage
February 24, 2006 9:03:52 PM

The only really big difference between the X2 and Opteron is that 2XX opterons and above support Multiple Processors. The FX60 is essentially an 2.6Ghz dual core Opteron 1XX whith an unlocked multiplier. This is somewhat usefull for overclocking but isn't worth the money. A better buy would be a 200 Opteron and associated Motherboard (I suggest the TYAN K8WE) as this allows a second processor to be added.

Fastest Combinations for Games (<=2 Cores) in Increasing Price and Speed:
X2 3800
(The other X2s)
X2 4800
2x Opteron 250s
2x Opteron 252s
2x Opteron 254s <- These systems are ungodly fast and have actually been around a while :) . The fastest system I've personally ever played with was a TYAN K8WE - 2x Opteron 254 - SLI system.

The FX60 would appear in this list between the 250 and 252, in terms of speed, but it is more expensive than two 252s. Possibly the FX60 in an overclocked state could beat 2 overclocked 254s due to the unlocked multiplier but rather I doubt it. Perhaps someone who has played with the FX60 would care to comment here. Also the relative costs of the motherboard come in to play here. These costs might put the FX60 on the list in place of the 252; I'm not positive but I think the FX60 is still more expensive.

The use of Opteron 260s and above is kind of dumb as far as games are concerned. Most (All?) games are still single threaded applications. Adding a second core improves things nicely because the game can be run on one core and everything else on the other. Also system responsiveness is considerably improved. However adding more than two cores a la 2x Opteron 260s doesnt really gain you anything for games; your better off with fewer faster cores.

For engineering Apps (or anything which is true multithreaded) the Opteron 260s and above take the crown in terms of speed.

Anyway just my 2 cents

-Amexoiss
February 24, 2006 10:05:59 PM

I wish I had the same result of Heyyou27.... XP64 grinds my Athlon 64 system to a halt when I use it. Possibly due to bad chipset drivers or some other compatibility issue as yet unresolved. Still, my experiences in trying it haven't been good as of yet, even with tinkering inside it with new drivers and such didn't really help.
February 24, 2006 10:06:48 PM

Actually, AMD claims both the X2-4400+ and the identical Opteron 175 at stock are 1.30/1.35 volts.
I thought that their was a .05 volt difference between the two, but apparently, there is not.
More and more it seems, they are both the same, only difference is marketing.
Best advice is to compare both, and get which is cheaper, just be sure that the models are the same so you do not get duped into getting the cheaper one, and it ends up to only have 2x512k cache if you want 2x1meg cache.

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/
February 24, 2006 10:47:26 PM

Quote:
The only really big difference between the X2 and Opteron is that 2XX opterons and above support Multiple Processors. The FX60 is essentially an 2.6Ghz dual core Opteron 1XX whith an unlocked multiplier. This is somewhat usefull for overclocking but isn't worth the money. A better buy would be a 200 Opteron and associated Motherboard (I suggest the TYAN K8WE) as this allows a second processor to be added.

Fastest Combinations for Games (<=2 Cores) in Increasing Price and Speed:
X2 3800
(The other X2s)
X2 4800
2x Opteron 250s
2x Opteron 252s
2x Opteron 254s <- These systems are ungodly fast and have actually been around a while :) . The fastest system I've personally ever played with was a TYAN K8WE - 2x Opteron 254 - SLI system.

The FX60 would appear in this list between the 250 and 252, in terms of speed, but it is more expensive than two 252s. Possibly the FX60 in an overclocked state could beat 2 overclocked 254s due to the unlocked multiplier but rather I doubt it. Perhaps someone who has played with the FX60 would care to comment here. Also the relative costs of the motherboard come in to play here. These costs might put the FX60 on the list in place of the 252; I'm not positive but I think the FX60 is still more expensive.

The use of Opteron 260s and above is kind of dumb as far as games are concerned. Most (All?) games are still single threaded applications. Adding a second core improves things nicely because the game can be run on one core and everything else on the other. Also system responsiveness is considerably improved. However adding more than two cores a la 2x Opteron 260s doesnt really gain you anything for games; your better off with fewer faster cores.

For engineering Apps (or anything which is true multithreaded) the Opteron 260s and above take the crown in terms of speed.

Anyway just my 2 cents

-Amexoiss


your farther off then you can immangine.

socket 940's are NOT faster then 939's


as for the origonal post get an opti 165, i wish i could sell my 4800+ and buy the 165, they overclock beter then mine.
February 24, 2006 11:09:04 PM

I believe he meant that two Opteron 2xx single cores are faster than one Opteron dual core or X2 dual core at the same clock speed, which is correct.
That does not make the single Opteron 2xx faster in itself, but when used paired with another it is a better performer.
February 25, 2006 12:39:13 AM

Quote:
I believe he meant that two Opteron 2xx single cores are faster than one Opteron dual core or X2 dual core at the same clock speed, which is correct.
That does not make the single Opteron 2xx faster in itself, but when used paired with another it is a better performer.


a dual core X2 in 939 is faster then two 2XX opti's in 940.
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2006 1:50:57 PM

The FX 60 is WAYYY overpriced at above $1000, for the 4-6% perfomance boost over an Opty 175 or 180...

I'd go for a socket 939 Opty 170 or 175, and then OC it to FX60 speeds, if/when those speeds were even necessary, which is doubtful....

Even if the OC were unsuccessful, I doubt a dual Opty at 2.2 or 2.4G will feel exactly slow compared to an FX60....
February 25, 2006 8:27:57 PM

Quote:
I wish I had the same result of Heyyou27.... XP64 grinds my Athlon 64 system to a halt when I use it. Possibly due to bad chipset drivers or some other compatibility issue as yet unresolved. Still, my experiences in trying it haven't been good as of yet, even with tinkering inside it with new drivers and such didn't really help.

Fly's for me too....How much RAM you got? I gave my friend my old A64 setup and with only 768 it chugz so he went back to 2000 :lol: 
2 Gig's is key nowadays
February 26, 2006 1:13:41 AM

I've got 2Gb of 2-3-2-5 Patriot Dual Channel.
a c 99 à CPUs
February 26, 2006 1:21:15 AM

It depends what you use the chip for, actually. Many applications do not behave much differently on the 4200+ and 4400+ as the clock speed is the same.
February 27, 2006 1:26:45 AM

Quote:
I believe he meant that two Opteron 2xx single cores are faster than one Opteron dual core or X2 dual core at the same clock speed, which is correct.
That does not make the single Opteron 2xx faster in itself, but when used paired with another it is a better performer.


a dual core X2 in 939 is faster then two 2XX opti's in 940.

No it isnt.

2 single-core opterons outperform both X2s and single dual-core Opterons at the same clock speed.

Also, the 939s are only slightly faster and only when you are comparing single processor systems. Furthermore, this is only due to better availability of the newest chipsets for 939 not some technical superiority of the 939 socket cpus. Amd releases its mainstream processors for 939 and therfore the lions share of single processor development goes to 939. A dual processor 940 system is significantly faster than any single processor 939 system given equivilant cpus. The addition of the second cpu buys you not only another core (or 2) but you also get double the memory bandwidth (a big deal) and depending on the motherboard more bandwidth to the perhipheral systems (not really a big deal but still an improvement). One example of this: until very recenlty the only true 32lane pci express SLI systems were dual processor opteron systems (doesn't really improve performance because the graphics cards can't use that much speed yet but it does prove the point).

Anyway I digress. 2 single core opterons of a given clock speed will outperform both an X2 at the same clock speed, and a dual core opteron at the same clock speed. And right now the fastest single core opterons run at 2.8GHz which only the FX57 can match and its not multiprocessor capable. Therefore the fastest systems available for single threaded applications are dual Opteron 254s.
February 27, 2006 2:33:15 AM

they will out preform them in apps for busness, but never for gaming. the memory for the socket 940 is very slow. regestered ram is impossablly slow, and dual core dual channel regestered ram will never be faster. sorry but you ARE WRONG.
February 27, 2006 3:18:19 PM

Opterons are server chips and their validation process is longer than that of the X2.
FX is a pure rip-off.
February 27, 2006 4:57:20 PM

Okay,
Thanks for all the help. I'm just trying to figure which processor to buy.

A couple more questions:
1) Is there a way to unlock the processor like Ahtlons (glue, conductive pen trick on the bridges ontop of the chip)
2) Is the FSB on these chips all stock at 200MHz? So to get 2400MHz, I would need a multiplier of x12 w/ 200MHz right?

Again, thanks for all the help
-AM
February 27, 2006 5:56:44 PM

Quote:
Okay,
Thanks for all the help. I'm just trying to figure which processor to buy.

A couple more questions:
1) Is there a way to unlock the processor like Ahtlons (glue, conductive pen trick on the bridges ontop of the chip)
2) Is the FSB on these chips all stock at 200MHz? So to get 2400MHz, I would need a multiplier of x12 w/ 200MHz right?

Again, thanks for all the help
-AM


1}no
2}yes you raise the FSB to get more mhz
May 30, 2009 3:45:39 AM

All dual socket AMD systems (socket 940 and newer) use a NUMA (Non Uniform Memory Architecture). Basically this means that each processor has it's own dual-channel memory controller. So if there are two processors there are a total of four memory channels. This means that, while it is true that registered RAM has higher latency, the bandwidth will be higher. Bandwidth important for server applications, some other applications prefer lower latency, and still others will not be affected because they are bottle-necked elsewhere in the system.
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2009 5:07:45 AM

This topic has been closed by Randomizer
!