Whats the deal?

[sammy1234]

Will somebody tell me how i walked into the twilight zone of computers. All of you are using server processors. Am I missing something?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: sammy1234
Will somebody tell me how i walked into the twilight zone of computers. All of you are using server processors. Am I missing something?

Yes.

Since you apparently didn't notice, AMD started releasing single- and dual-core 'Opteron' chips in Socket939. While nominally designed for server/workstation use, these are basically cherry-picked Athlon64 and Athlon64X2 chips that have 1MB of L2 cache per core. They tend to overclock very well, so people started buying them and overclocking them. For a while they were also priced significantly lower than the regular Socket939 Athlon64 X2 CPUs, which meant they were a pretty damn good deal.

 

[Proprioceptive]

Opterons are MUCH more cost effective. They are pretty much the equivalent of the X2 processors, just with slower clocks. They're much better overclockers as well as they've been tested with much more rigorous conditions. If you don't have a lot of money, an Opteron is the way to go, but if you've got money, then heck, blow it on an FX-60 or 4800+ and overclock even further! But basically, Opterons are the choice for money issues and a bit for stability. Hope this helps.

 

[sammy1234]

But what about the fact that dual core processors dont sync. Whats the point in paying for two prcessors when your only using one? Oh and I do know the structure and capability of the new opterons.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: sammy1234
But what about the fact that dual core processors dont sync. Whats the point in paying for two prcessors when your only using one? Oh and I do know the structure and capability of the new opterons.

I don't even know where to start.

 

[sammy1234]

As you can see, the Opteron processor is really designed for use in servers.

Oh yah not nominal
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/27340

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: sammy1234

As you can see, the Opteron processor is really designed for use in servers.

Oh yah not nominal
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/27340

Who are you and why do you think you know something about CPUs? Like I said, they're nominally 'server/workstation' CPUs.

S940 Opteron 1XXs and S939 Opterons are basically just cherry-picked Athlon64 or Athlon64X2 CPU dies with 1MB of L2 cache per core. Because they're rigorously tested and are usually from the best speed bins, they tend to overclock very well, making them a popular choice for overclockers.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: sammy1234

As you can see, the Opteron processor is really designed for use in servers.

Oh yah not nominal
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/27340

Who are you and why do you think you know something about CPUs? Like I said, they're nominally 'server/workstation' CPUs.

S940 Opteron 1XXs and S939 Opterons are basically just cherry-picked Athlon64 or Athlon64X2 CPU dies with 1MB of L2 cache per core. Because they're rigorously tested and are usually from the best speed bins, they tend to overclock very well, making them a popular choice for overclockers.

It would appear sammy doesn`t know a whole lot about the subject other what he/she reads....
and also doesn`t comprehend responses very well...other than that hey.,...

 

[ribbon13]

Opteron 165 is cheap, 1MB L2 cache, 4 heat pipe sink in retail kit.

Far better deal then the X2 3800. Other than that, nothing wrong with X2s

 

[HO]

Originally posted by: sammy1234
But what about the fact that dual core processors dont sync. Whats the point in paying for two prcessors when your only using one? Oh and I do know the structure and capability of the new opterons.

Today's troll alert threat advisory is BLUE (Be alert to suspicious activity and report it to proper authorities.)

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: HO

Originally posted by: sammy1234
But what about the fact that dual core processors dont sync. Whats the point in paying for two prcessors when your only using one? Oh and I do know the structure and capability of the new opterons.

Today's troll alert threat advisory is BLUE (Be alert to suspicious activity and report it to proper authorities.)

exactly, maybe he should try hanging out a bit in the CPU/PROCESSORS AND OVERCLOCKING section of AT.

 

[sammy1234]

woah, i'm no troll. I just know from my expeience with building computers and networks that the opteron is primarilly a multitasking processor. I dont know much about it's overclocking abilities, but I do know that overcloking can only give slight performance increases. My own experience involves overclocking a 3400+ 754 to 3.2 Ghz using the Asetek VapoChill Micro. It woked but was only good for an hour of hard use before it was plauged by stability problems. The life of the processor was also cut short by almost one year compared to my other non-oc'd CPU. And for what a 10fps gain in half life? It wasnt worth it. I have looked into opterons and have seen the 280 at 925$, doesnt sound like a big saver, especially when you can get a more powerfull and stable FX60 for less than 100$ more.
My friend who is also my neighbor and pc building partner paid the big bucks for the FX60 and has had less than top of the line performance from it. I have a 4000+ which I run at 2.6, we compared speeds after I got my 7900gt's, he was running 7800gtx's. Amazingly I beat his top fps by 20. He maintianed more of a stable read only fluctuating between 20fps while mine went between 80fps all the way to 158! He maintained 120fps the entire time, this was in BF2. We discovered that his processor was only running one physically. The other was just idle the majority of the time. Which backed up my suspicion that the dual core processors will not be optimally used untill VISTA is released and dual core is adequitly supported.

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: sammy1234
woah, i'm no troll. I just know from my expeience with building computers and networks that the opteron is primarilly a multitasking processor. I dont know much about it's overclocking abilities, but I do know that overcloking can only give slight performance increases. My own experience involves overclocking a 3400+ 754 to 3.2 Ghz using the Asetek VapoChill Micro. It woked but was only good for an hour of hard use before it was plauged by stability problems. The life of the processor was also cut short by almost one year compared to my other non-oc'd CPU. And for what a 10fps gain in half life? It wasnt worth it. I have looked into opterons and have seen the 280 at 925$, doesnt sound like a big saver, especially when you can get a more powerfull and stable FX60 for less than 100$ more.
My friend who is also my neighbor and pc building partner paid the big bucks for the FX60 and has had less than top of the line performance from it. I have a 4000+ which I run at 2.6, we compared speeds after I got my 7900gt's, he was running 7800gtx's. Amazingly I beat his top fps by 20. He maintianed more of a stable read only fluctuating between 20fps while mine went between 80fps all the way to 158! He maintained 120fps the entire time, this was in BF2. We discovered that his processor was only running one physically. The other was just idle the majority of the time. Which backed up my suspicion that the dual core processors will not be optimally used untill VISTA is released and dual core is adequitly supported.

There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread.

Most of the overclockers here are using Opterons from the 1xx series, not the 2xx series. The 2xx series are not socket 939 and, yes, are much more expensive. Mathias was describing to you the benefits of using the 1xx series Opteron CPUs.

I can buy an Opteron 165 for a little over $300 and have a very good chance at overclocking it beyond FX-60 speeds on air cooling. THAT is what makes them popular around here.

Dual core is getting support in current games by way of updated graphics drivers and game patches so there is no need to wait until Vista to see a benefit from them today. Add to that the ability to perform processor two processor intensive tasks such as video encoding, software compiling or even gaming simultaneously without taking a performance hit and there is even more reason to benefit from dual core CPUs today.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

.............

 

[sammy1234]

Thank you for your reply. I do see that the 1xx series are signifigantly cheaper for dual core and, it is true that they are more stable for overclocking. Something to look at for my next build. But I would prefer to wait for VISTA and full support.

 

[sammy1234]

I am a hard line, single core advocate. I dont trust all that new fangled stuff.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: sammy1234
I am a hard line, single core advocate. I dont trust all that new fangled stuff.

ROFL! :laugh:

You might want to stop digging the hole deeper...

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: sammy1234
Thank you for your reply. I do see that the 1xx series are signifigantly cheaper for dual core and, it is true that they are more stable for overclocking. Something to look at for my next build. But I would prefer to wait for VISTA and full support.

When it comes to dual-core processors, nothing with Vista will change. Dual-core processors are already fully supported by Windows XP.

 

[Luckyboy1]

As far as your overclocking results go, your results will vary, not just with whatever CPU cooler you use, but with power supplies, case cooling and even the size of the case and many other factors. The fact that you failed to see results that are rock solid and substantial does not mean that it can't be done and done well.

However, I've yet to grasp anything in the responses to the original question about core design and synching. My questions are as follows...

Are the Opterons synched?

If not, does it matter and if so, when?

I'm not asking so much for myself because I am waiting for the new Intel technology to come out and hopefully... and I expect it, the decent response from AMD because I'd love for my next build to end up being AMD. In the past, at the moment I've made the jump to a new chipset, it has more by accident ended up being Intel. I dunnow, if it makes sense, I'd like a bit of a change in pace!

I'm asking because people are asking me about current builds and this is a new one on me.

 

[sammy1234]

However, I've yet to grasp anything in the responses to the original question about core design and synching.

Thank you!

 

[morkman100]

Originally posted by: sammy1234
woah, i'm no troll. I just know from my expeience with building computers and networks that the opteron is primarilly a multitasking processor. I dont know much about it's overclocking abilities, but I do know that overcloking can only give slight performance increases. My own experience involves overclocking a 3400+ 754 to 3.2 Ghz using the Asetek VapoChill Micro. It woked but was only good for an hour of hard use before it was plauged by stability problems. The life of the processor was also cut short by almost one year compared to my other non-oc'd CPU. And for what a 10fps gain in half life? It wasnt worth it. I have looked into opterons and have seen the 280 at 925$, doesnt sound like a big saver, especially when you can get a more powerfull and stable FX60 for less than 100$ more.
My friend who is also my neighbor and pc building partner paid the big bucks for the FX60 and has had less than top of the line performance from it. I have a 4000+ which I run at 2.6, we compared speeds after I got my 7900gt's, he was running 7800gtx's. Amazingly I beat his top fps by 20. He maintianed more of a stable read only fluctuating between 20fps while mine went between 80fps all the way to 158! He maintained 120fps the entire time, this was in BF2. We discovered that his processor was only running one physically. The other was just idle the majority of the time. Which backed up my suspicion that the dual core processors will not be optimally used untill VISTA is released and dual core is adequitly supported.

An overclock of 1000MHz (or 45%) is "slight"?!?! Maybe your expectations are too high. Or it's BS. I don't think some of the hardcore OCers are getting over 3.0GHz on Opterons on air, let alone a 754 Athlon64.

Plus, the difference between a FX-60 and 4000+ is minimal in games. Most games are GPU limited, depending on the res. Try encoding some video or something that is very CPU-limited.

 

[sammy1234]

my inspiration for such a high overclock was a CPU magazine article about a man who used the vapochill lightspeed to cool his AMD3400+ to an overclock of 4.2Ghz Something unbelievable to me so I tried half with the smaller system. Like i said before it worked to an extent.
Oh and if your grade school level reading skills arent up to snuff, I said that I only got a slight increase in performance. Not a slight overclock.

 

[Luckyboy1]

That's the problem with not just the internet, but with people in general and their desire for external validation of their preconceived ideas. Evern if the article was correct and I can about assure you it was not in any real and sustainable sense with timings of RAM and multipliers set where it will do you some good... even if correct, what made you think your oranges would come up tasting like his apples in the end?

My Opteron questions still stand! Hell, it was supposed to be the primary thrust of the person originating this thread! Anyone!

 

[morkman100]

Originally posted by: sammy1234
my inspiration for such a high overclock was a CPU magazine article about a man who used the vapochill lightspeed to cool his AMD3400+ to an overclock of 4.2Ghz Something unbelievable to me so I tried half with the smaller system. Like i said before it worked to an extent.

Inspiration doesn't help with CPU cooling. The Lightspeed is a phase change cooler, which basically drops the CPU heatsink to below 0C. Air cooling won't work at the range you're talking about. The highest overclock on overclockers.com for this CPU is 2.85GHz. Combined with the fact that you seem to be posting questionable info, I'd say BS.

Unless you have a screen shot of this overclock... then I'll humbly apologize.

 

[Twsmit]

Originally posted by: sammy1234

As you can see, the Opteron processor is really designed for use in servers.

Oh yah not nominal
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/27340

That article is over a year old. Socket 940 opterons run on registered ram and can support the 8GB etc... The architecture is very similar to the A64/X2 but socket 940 opterons are inherently different because they have a different memory controller.

1xx socket 939 opterons are the same chips as A64/X2, just cherry picked like the others said. No architectural differences except cherry picking allows them to run at a lower voltage and reach higher OCs.