Opterons are only for servers and so won't be as good as normal Athlon 64s for normal use. I'd recommend the Venice core, its the newest core available, and has significant power consumption and feature improvements over the older cores. As well as being a good overclocker.
After some initial stability issues... Nvidia with AMD + Windows (duuuhhhh) = BSOD. No idea why. Anywho, managed to get round that eventually... yeah... X2 AMD cores are beauts, can clock my 4400 2.2mhz up to 2.5-2.6 without tooo much worry (I do have watercooling tho). If you have the cash, an FX 57/59... *drool*... no need to OC them ... blinding. Thats if you want a higher end chip
Well actually the Sandiego core is AMD's newest for it's single core CPU's which overclock slightly better than the venice cores which as Addis said are excellent OC'ers. On the dual core side of things the Manchester cores seem to OC a little better than most of the Toledo's but the difference is minor in the long run.
Actually, the S939 Opterons seem to OC pretty well, but not as many people use them. The SanDiego and Manchester cores are the better overclockers, but I wouldn't spend an extra large amount getting one (say $50-100 over the other core).
thanks guys, im not after any thing expensive, something below £140 ($300 ish) prefferably. ive got an amd althlon 64 3400+ clawhammer core and it is anything but good. just want something fairly cheap that i can OC to make it fairly good. i heard a 3000+ 939 is faster than the 3400+ 754. my mates got a 3200+ althlon xp and that is faster than my 3400+ athlon 64 so the cpu's i can afford are athlon 64 939 3000+, 3200+, 3500+ (if i save a little more) and the 144 opteron's.
Well you wouldn't really want an Opteron as I said. The San Diego is the higher end A64, with more L2 cache than the Venice but apart from that no other differences. Depends on your budget really. Manchester and Toledo are the X2 chips, but they're expensive compared to the single core chips.
If you're gaming, Opterons are probably not your best bet. They have the fastest memory access currently available, much faster than AMD64s which share the same cores. But for gaming, they come in second to the less expensive AMD64's. Opterons are workstation or server CPUs, not gaming CPUs.
i read recently in a magazine, that the 3200 (socket 939, venice core ) is the most value for money, they managed to oc it safley from 2000mhz to 2400mhz, effectivly running at 3800+ 4000+ speeds, and for £130 its also very economical. These speeds were achieved in conjunction with a water colled system, but just with the stock hs and fan they managed to oc to 2220mhz. i think this is due to the venice core using the 90nm process rather than your 130nm clawhammer process which produces more heat. so for £130 your get a 2ghz chip which can safley be oc'ed to 2.2ghz with the stock heatsink and fan, now compare that to the other amd chips and your laughing! hope this helped you a bit
hi, the best core is the venice core, which uses the 90nm process, so the core runs cooler, which provides a better oc'ing opportunity. i was recently reading an article on the best, overall, including value for money and current AMD 64 chip on the market, and i was supprised atthe results, basicly they took into account price stock speed and stable overclocking. and would you believe that the amd 64 3200+ won?? basicly the 3200+ (venice core) runs at 2000mhz (stock speed) and they managed to oc it to an amazing 2561mhz, which is faster than the 3800+ and the 4000+, both of which are £230, £260 respectivly, this was of course with a water cooled system. with the stock heatsink and fan they manged 2286mhz, so for a £130 chip. you can get and extra 286mhz from the stoxk fan and heatsink, so if your on a budgeti would opt for the 3200+ , venice core which has a 90nm process compared to your 130nm clawhammer process. hope thathelps a bit ma\te
Well that is with water cooling but frankly I'm surprised it couldn't go further as people are getting those results on air over at newegg. Either way in the US the 3200 is an awesome deal, it cost's about $9 more than the 3000+ yet you get a 200MHz bonus. The 3500 is great but if you're overclocking anyway there's little point of getting one of those as you can just OC to that level easily enough, with or without watercooling. I doubt the 3000+ is faster than the 3400Claw, I know clockspeed isn't everything but when it comes to as great a difference as 400-600MHz (some of the 3400's ran at 2.4GHz) dual-channel ram wouln't be able to save the 1.8GHz 3000+ which performs similarly to the socket 754 3000+ that ran at 2.0GHz. However it does overclock well and most people get it above 2.2GHz not problem (and no water cooling).
they were very conservative when oc'ing the 3200+, and faster speeds are easily achievable, but they took into account stabililty and performance. the 3200+ (venice core) is faster than the 3500+ (newcastle core) due to the 90nm process. overall the best bet is most definatly to purchase an amd 3200+ (venice core) it will be an excellent £130 spent, and you will have the chance to be able to over it to the same speed as its 4000+ 2.4ghz bigger brother, but for a fraction of the price. so for me, if money is an issue, gofor the 3200+ (venice core), oc it 400mhz and you will have a 3200+ running @ 4000+ 2.4ghz speed. job done!
so as it stands, a 3200 venice core should do the job. if i get a part-time job (im still in school) i may consider splashing out on a 4400 x2, but in reality i can only afford the 3200 atm. thanks for all the help guys, got all i needed to know. cheers jason
Cool, I would stick with the 3800 if you want dual-core, the prices become a little inflated otherwise and the Manchester core overclocks extreamly well.
Yes and no. The Venice predecessor, Winchester, is found on S939 A64's ranging from 2800+ to 3500+. The Venice took over at 3200+ (I think, it may be 3000+). Most online stores will say, but if you're not sure, you might wanna ask. The Winchester isn't a terrible overclocker, as it's a 90nm just like the Venice, but the Venice has an improved memory controller to help alliviate some issues with a Winchester, in particular running with 4 sticks of RAM. I've run my Winchester up to 2.34GHz stable, btw. The Venice might be a little better, but statistically, the OC's aren't that much better. However, the few improvements that it does bring make it worth it. Most low-end S939 A64's are Venice, but the higher ones start going to the SanDiego core.
well i got a 3500 venice core off a mate for £90. just got it all installed and tested it on my gane to see if there were any improvements, well my fps has dropped my 3400 754 clawhammer produced a better fps, would this be because of the higher cache the 754 has? i have tried OCing it but it doesnt seem to want to work on this mobo (k8 combo-z)
HELP!!!!! my pc has developed a problem, it likes to restart all the time now. now everytime i load battlefield 2 up it restarts!!! or if i leave it in standby it crashes, any ideas?
yeah, in using a 4400x2 hsf, it hovers around 27-31 with little load on it, so i doubt is overheating
