Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon vs. Opteron

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 2, 2007 3:51:55 AM

What are the differences, other than processor speed, between the Athlon 64 dual core( ADO4000IAA6CS @ 65W or the ADA4000IAA6CS @89W) and the Opteron 165. I will be building a new desktop that will run all but high end games. Most work is Photo (GIMP and Photoshop), graphics, CAD,office and internet with some low end gaming. Once I decide on a processor I can start looking at motherboards. The Opteron looks to be the most bang for the buck. Thanks , Lee

More about : athlon opteron

February 2, 2007 4:02:39 AM

On the surface they are the same actual chip. Opteron came first and is always optimized for continual operation whereas Athlon is optimized for "burst" operation.

That means that you can overclock Opteron better than Athlon as it's optimization routines allow for a wider operational tolerance.
February 2, 2007 4:25:56 AM

Quote:
On the surface they are the same actual chip. Opteron came first and is always optimized for continual operation whereas Athlon is optimized for "burst" operation.

That means that you can overclock Opteron better than Athlon as it's optimization routines allow for a wider operational tolerance.


I haven't considered overclocking but will if I choose the Opteron This will be a upgrade from a Athlon 2500+. How does continual as opposed to burst apply to everyday use? I tend to lean toward the Opteron due to its price. My main concern is that it is for workstation and I'm building a desktop. I don't think that really makes much difference but want to be sure.
Related resources
February 2, 2007 4:39:59 AM

Quote:
On the surface they are the same actual chip. Opteron came first and is always optimized for continual operation whereas Athlon is optimized for "burst" operation.

That means that you can overclock Opteron better than Athlon as it's optimization routines allow for a wider operational tolerance.


I haven't considered overclocking but will if I choose the Opteron This will be a upgrade from a Athlon 2500+. How does continual as opposed to burst apply to everyday use? I tend to lean toward the Opteron due to its price. My main concern is that it is for workstation and I'm building a desktop. I don't think that really makes much difference but want to be sure.

Continual is where you turn it on and only turn it off when something breaks. I suspend my machine every night and use it for general tasks 60% of the time. That's burst.

Opteron is a little cheaper right now because the quad cores are coming. Either one will seve you well, though. I am still on 939 and I may get an Opteron soon before quad core.
February 2, 2007 4:40:47 AM

The Opeteron 165 overclocks very nicely. I was able to get mine up to 2.8Ghz quite easily!

Opteron 165 @ 2.8
EVGA 8800 GTS
DFI LanParty nforce 4
Vista Premium X64
X-Fi Xtreme Music
Toshiba 32" LCD
February 2, 2007 4:49:25 AM

Thanks for the fast and informative replies. I too suspend mine each night , but think the Opteron is the solution to my needs. I can't see how turning it off can affect anything. Again, thanks. Lee
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2007 5:13:13 AM

Opteron by all means. My former rig was an Opty 170 OC'd to 3.0 Ghz, and it was the best AMD CPU I ever had. Absolutely magnificent performance at cool temps. Can't recommend it highly enough! :D 
February 2, 2007 5:49:49 AM

Quote:
What are the differences, other than processor speed, between the Athlon 64 dual core( ADO4000IAA6CS @ 65W or the ADA4000IAA6CS @89W) and the Opteron 165. I will be building a new desktop that will run all but high end games. Most work is Photo (GIMP and Photoshop), graphics, CAD,office and internet with some low end gaming. Once I decide on a processor I can start looking at motherboards. The Opteron looks to be the most bang for the buck. Thanks , Lee

You do see that the Opty is a 939 and the 4000 x2 is an AM2?

If you're building a system from the ground up, go with the LATEST version. Down the road when you're looking for an upgrade, wouldn't it be better to have a setup that only needs a new processor, instead of a new processor, mobo, and memory(DDR vs. DDR2)?
February 2, 2007 5:51:29 AM

Neither. Even the low budget C2D's are faster. And when the 4mb L2 cache versions come out you'll be even more sorry you wasted your money on some outdated slow stuff.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2007 6:00:05 AM

Quote:
You do see that the Opty is a 939 and the 4000 x2 is an AM2?


Good point. It crossed my mind for a moment where he found a 939 X2 4000 Toledo core. :?
February 2, 2007 4:52:47 PM

Your most effective option is the 165 or 170 opterons. They are dirt cheap. $155 for the 165 and $200+ for the 170. At 2.47ghz my 165 meets the FX-60 at 2.6 ghz which is equal to the 185. Now unless you intend to rip MP3's while you play battelfield 2 there is no particular point to the dual cores. In the newest genration of supercomputers we are buying single cores with accelerator chips. For example the Opteorn 144 with the IBM Cell chip is 1.25 times faster than the fastest Kentsfield quadcore before the Kentsfield hits the market. In 64 bit that difference will be more like 1.8 times as fast. When Cell+ gets here the differences will double to 2.5 and 3.6 times faster. ATI has done a project with Stanford Medical School to split a pair of graphics cards in Croosfire and use one as a floating point accelerator. It is 5 times faster than Kentsfield. NVidia is working on the same thing for AMD chipsets. Due to the design and absence of Integrated Memory Control it won't happen on Intel any time soon.

If single core will do you newegg has the FX-55 on sale for $140 using the code AMDROCKS($50 off). There is no lock on the multiplier so overclocking is easier .
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
!