XP or Opteron?

fudgam

I would like to know how a 1.4 opteron would perform against an XP of equal price. I am concerned mostly with heavy duty gaming performance. Ive heard that opterons are no good for gaming, Ive also heard that they are quite exceptional for gaming. Please fill me in on this. I would prefer to get an opteron at a lower clock as they get very expensive.
Also, what speed ram would I need to get the full potential from an opteron?
Are there any quality motherboards out yet?
How high could I overclock it? Or would it even be necessary?

Josh-

I think I have some good information on some. If you want me to find where I stored it I will. It was pretty detailed, as I remember. But I'm not totally sure it is on the right things, I could check for you later, if you haven't found an answer to your questions. -J

NoFuture

I'd recommend you not to go with opteron. They are mainly server/workstation class CPUs and meant to run at least dually. Plus, they only work with registered ram wich harder to find and more expensive than normal one.

If you want to go the athlon64 way, get yourself a 3200+ and a good KT800 board, the new SIS 755 seems pretty good too. the 3200+ platform should outperfom the opteron and be a tad cheaper cause you don't need an expensive board and reg ram.

As for OC, it is a bit screawy on athlon64 for now so i don't recommend this especially if your not really into it.

My advice would be to wait till Athlon64s get more mature. the new socket 939 is coming for 3200+ and better boards as well.
If you are really in the urge of upgrading, get yourself a NF7-S, some good ram and nice Tbred B that will fly up to 2.5ghz.

qparadox

at all but the highest price points (ie 3200+) the XP will give you more performance for less money, this is especially true if you are willing to overclock. If you're dying for an upgrade now then go with an XP. The athlon64 platform (as future said) is in a state of flux and it makes no practical sense to go A64 or Opteron atm for gaming purposes.

keto

*Ding* NoF got it just right. An opteron 1.4 is roughly the same $ as a Barton 3000+ BUT take memory and mobo into account, it's way more. If you're wanting to lay out that kinda cash, A64 (assuming you have memory you can use over). If you need the whole rig now cheaper, the Barton 2600+ NF7-S/AN7 & good memory, a proven solid gaming combo, tho dependant somewhat on the video card too of course.

NoFuture

I think you should definatly wait till socket 939 comes out as i'm sure its gonna change a lot of stuff in the A64 line. Right now, socket 754 has its days counted and will probably end up like 423 was for the P4, back in the days when it was pure garbage... =)

fudgam

NoFuture, eventhough I can get a T-Bred to 2.5, wouldnt I be better off getting 2600+ which has a Barton core? Wouldnt the Barton outperform the T-Bred reguardless of the clock speed?

citrixmeta

check this page out.. it should give you a good idea of what opterons can do.

3dmark2001

fudgam

I don't have money for a 1.8 opteron.

a2jfreak

I'd get the Athlon XP. Either a TBred(B) or a Barton. If you go with the Barton I think the 2600+ is the best option unless you're guaranteed of getting a 2500+ that is unlocked. If you go with the TBred(B) I'd get a 1700+ or an 1800+ DLT3C. Either way, make sure you get a good heatsink (I'd recomment the SLK-900U or SLK-900A or the SLK-947) and a fan that moves more than 40CFM, preferably even higher . . . svc.com has a nice 92mm x 25mm fan that pushes (IIRC) 66CFM @ 40dB.

primesuspect

For gaming, I would go with a top-end barton XP. Opterons are too expensive for what they do. If you were building a database server, I would think you were an idiot for getting anything BUT an opteron system, but for gaming and general use, they are not cost effective. They ARE high performance, but just not cost effective.

fudgam

If you benchmarked 2 systems where the only thing different was a 2600+ at stock and a 1700+ overclocked to 2600+ speeds, the 2600+ would score higher...right? What is better about the 1700+? If there is only a minor difference in performance, then I would get the 1700+ and save a few exrta bucks. But if I have to choose between a slide show and a smooth ride when I'm playing a game, I'll pay more for the 2600+.

a2jfreak

fudgam: I don't have the stats right in front of me, but most things are NOT[/'b] completely contained within the extra 256KB of L2 cache on the Barton, therefore the added performance isn't as great as you're lead to believe.

I'd say that you're probably not going to see any more than a 5% performance jump (on average) when comparing a Barton to a TBred(B). In fact, in some apps you'll see virtually no performance jump. Yes, the Barton is faster clock-for-clock, but we're talking small fractions here.
If a TBred's MHz rating is a 1 per MHz, then a Barton is a 1.002 per MHz. (Ok, I just pulled those number out of my butt, but you get the idea.)

fudgam

If the T-Bred with those bad-a** steppings can get a wicked high clock, higher than a 2600+, then it would be more powerful than a 2600+?

Al_Capown

Yes.

If you get a 1700/1800 to 2.4 - 2.5 your cpu will bench higher than any 2600+ could on air (assuming it's a barton).

fudgam

Well then, unless there are any objections, I'll be going with the 1700+/1800+.