AM2 Opteron vs. Windsor

The AM2 Opterons have come down in price a bit... and I've heard so many good things about the 939 opty's such as the 170. So are the AM2 Opty's better than the Windsors? The Windsors are still slightly cheaper... but how do they compare for overclocking?

Since Athlon 64s and X2s are 65nm now, and Opterons won't be 65nm for a few months now (from what I've heard), I'd say the best way to go right now would be with an Athlon X2.

Right now on newegg the 1216 Santa Ana @ 2.4GHz and the X2 6000 @ 3.0GHz are both $169... Both have 2 x 1MB L2 cache. From what I've heard the 6000 does not OC well. Anyone have some input? Of course there is always the FX-62 for $199.

Right... but only the Brisbane's are 65nm... the windsors are 90nm.

Well of course the 6000+ isn't going to overclock well, it's already close to being maxed out. And I'm not sure if I would spend $170 on a 2.4Ghz CPU in the hopes that it overclocks to 3Ghz, when I could just buy a 3Ghz CPU for the same price. Hmm...

Well, you basically summed up my original question... I've heard MANY good things about 939 Opty's and I was wondering if they are better than the Athlons for reasons other than core clock and cache. Maybe they are more reliable? More stable? Longer lasting? I guess basically I want to know what the difference is between server and desktop CPUs. Why does the Opty cost more when the Athlons are faster?

Those cost more cause meant to be for workstations where price isn't the most important.

Actually like 2 weeks ago when I built my rig I wondered about the same which to buy.

X2 easier to sell, higher stock clock and multi, on the opty side the only thing is those might be better chips is the only thing which isn't even proved. Read somewhere yesterday someone bought a Santa Ana and seems to max out at 2.8, X2s go about 3.2.