Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Brisbane VS. Opty's

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 25, 2007 1:34:28 AM

Another quick question. Would I get more bang for the buck If I were to buy an opty the BE-235or 0pty for around the same price. which one would be better for playing games and movie encoding ?
This just my curious wondering question that I have been wondering since there are no benchies on the opty's on tom's so I am wondering which one would yall suggest. and How would they compare to the regular 3600+X2 Brisbane aside from the price??
Say in term of Overclocking each of them to 2.6-2.7 ghz stable

Opteron Santa Ana 1210 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105015


Brisbane BE-2350
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16819103186


Brisbane 3600+X2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103046

The 3600+X2 Brisbane is quite cheaper and the BE-2350 is a 45 watt processor and the Opty is just a sexy OPty which I dont know much about. SO please help me answer my boggling question of which one would be more beneficiary.

THANKS ALLLLL!!!!!

(You guys are my only HONEST source of getting my questions answered since I cant really trust anyone in my Best buy and Fry's store.) ^_^

More about : amd brisbane opty

August 25, 2007 1:57:54 AM

If it is for gameing and movie encoding, you shluld probabl go with the opty since it has 2mb cache, however the be2350 and x2 3600 would fit the bill for a low end gaming machine, I guess it depends on whether you do more encoding or gaming
August 25, 2007 1:59:56 AM

what If was just going to be doing the same ammount of both would the opty still be a preferable choice ? or would it make a less of a low end gaming machine? and in terms of OC you are saying that all 3 of them would be equal but the opty would be more effiecent due to its L2 cache ?
Related resources
August 25, 2007 2:04:48 AM

Then go with the opteron, of course ifyou want the low wattage you can go with a 65watt x2 5200 with 2mb cache, or the the x2 5200 ee(90nm instaem of 65 nm like the previous one), I actually wish i had purchased the 65nm or energy efficeint x2 5200. I think theat processor would cover everthing you want in a processor.
August 25, 2007 2:05:17 AM

Then go with the opteron, of course ifyou want the low wattage you can go with a 65watt x2 5200 with 2mb cache, or the the x2 5200 ee(90nm instaem of 65 nm like the previous one), I actually wish i had purchased the 65nm or energy efficeint x2 5200. I think theat processor would cover everthing you want in a processor.
August 25, 2007 2:22:58 AM

The best bang for the buck if you're overclocking is the X2 3600+ Brisbane. It should overclock to 3 -3.1Ghz. The opteron should overclock to 3 - 3.2Ghz and the 2mb cache will give a little better performance. I've read the BE-2350 may not overclock as well as the others. It's main advantage is low power at stock. So, for best bang for the buck, get the X2 3600+. For maximum performance, get the opteron.
August 25, 2007 2:32:48 AM

how would the opteron compare with an 4300 allendale at stock clocks on both processors and when both oced to roughly 2.7 ghz ?
thanks again
August 26, 2007 8:45:45 PM

guess no one knows. Even though I know that the E4300 will own it up.
August 26, 2007 8:47:47 PM

im afraid to say it but AMDs optys would compare to a e4300, put your money on the winner (intel in this case_)
August 26, 2007 8:49:25 PM

soo you mean they would be neck and neck but the OC goes to the 4300 ?
!