Which should I get? 4000+ 2.4 GHz San Diego - OR - 165 Opty

[1Time]

I want to upgrade my processor. See my system in my sig. The San Diego is going for very cheap at New Egg and I'd like to O/C it to about 2.8 GHz on air. Or, would I have a better chance of hitting 2.8 GHz with a 165 Opty. I'm leaning toward the San Diego since it's much cheaper. Thanks!

 

[pak]

dual core dual core dual core. If you haven't done it, do it. One of the best moves I have ever done.

As far as the OC, seems like a lot of the recent x2 chips have been clocking well.

--pak

 

[nd4spdbh2]

thing is do you want dual core... the 4000 sandiego is a single core if im not mistaken... the opty 165 is a dual core and people are gettin VERY good oc's with them... theres a good ammount hittin 3.0ghz.

 

[1Time]

dual core dual core dual core. If you haven't done it, do it. One of the best moves I have ever done.

As far as the OC, seems like a lot of the recent x2 chips have been clocking well.

--pak

Thanks and I don't doubt what you've posted is true. However, I have no need for a dual core and I'm trying to keep the cost of this upgrade down to a minimum and the 4000+ San Diego is under $80 at New Egg right now, very tempting.

So, if the 4000+ San Diego is likely to hit 2.8 GHz, I think I'm going to go with that. Given my current system, is there any reason I would not likely be able to O/C it to at least 2.8 GHz?

 

[1Time]

thing is do you want dual core... the 4000 sandiego is a single core if im not mistaken... the opty 165 is a dual core and people are gettin VERY good oc's with them... theres a good ammount hittin 3.0ghz.

That's right, the Sandy is a single and the 165 is a dual core. I included the 165 in my selection since I've seen it recommended so much. Just want to keep the cost of this upgrade to a minimum if possible and the Sandy's price has my attention. If only I had a better feel for the likelihood of me being able to O/C the Sandy 400+ MHz with my current system...

 

[1Time]

After reading a few reviews for each of these at New Egg, I think I've answered my own question. The San Diego will be the better bet to hit 2.8 GHz with my system. Don't need or want a dual core. Trying to keep the upgrade cost low. The 165 Opty potentially requires better memory than I have to O/C to 2.8 GHz. Problem solved. If anyone cares to opine to the contrary, please feel free to do so... and thank you!

 

[nd4spdbh2]

After reading a few reviews for each of these at New Egg, I think I've answered my own question. The San Diego will be the better bet to hit 2.8 GHz with my system. Don't need or want a dual core. Trying to keep the upgrade cost low. The 165 Opty potentially requires better memory than I have to O/C to 2.8 GHz. Problem solved. If anyone cares to opine to the contrary, please feel free to do so... and thank you!

lets just put it this way... i have had a "dual core" cpu for my whole life.... i started out with my own system with a p4 3.0c with hyperthreading... now its not a dual core per say but it does allow to do more per clock, now that system @ 3.0ghz seemed SO much faster then my friends 3.4ghz prescott 650 (had ht disabled). Now another friend went from a 3700 to a x2 4400 and the difference to him was amazing.... i dont think i could ever handle not having a dual core... single core systems seem soo ... un responsive.

 

[Maviryk]

You don't need to get faster ram to use with the opty. Just use a divider, AMD chips like memory timings, not memory bandwidth.

 

[QuietIce]

After reading a few reviews for each of these at New Egg, I think I've answered my own question. The San Diego will be the better bet to hit 2.8 GHz with my system. Don't need or want a dual core. Trying to keep the upgrade cost low. The 165 Opty potentially requires better memory than I have to O/C to 2.8 GHz. Problem solved. If anyone cares to opine to the contrary, please feel free to do so... and thank you!

Memory dividers can be adjusted as needed - the FSB is the limiter on OCing a 9X chip.

If you're running your rig strictly for games & surfing then the 4000 is the right choice ...

 

[||Console||]

I think that the 4000+ is a better idea considering what your MB is

 

[DJCorpse]

It seems kind of silly to me for one to go from a single core cpu to another single core cpu at this point in time. To each their own however, especially if cost is an issue.

I have a 3700+ in a second pc that I run at 255 * 11 = 2805 so I am sure the 4000+ will hit 2.8 without much effort.

 

[ps2cho]

You dont want to continue with one core...go dual for sure.

 

[benbaked]

What about a single core Opteron? It should be easier to hit 2.8 GHz with a single core Opteron, probably a 146 or maybe a 144. I have a 144 that is almost cabbage (but not quite) and I can hit 2.8 with it.

The single core Opterons are really cheap right now... the Egg has the 144 for $77 and the 146 for $88.

EDIT: I'm not sure how high an HTT your board can handle, so maybe the 144 isn't a great choice.

 

[1Time]

This CPU upgrade is for a HTPC (see my sig), which is why I posted earlier that I don't need a dual core. My primary consideration is to choose a CPU that has the best chance of reaching 2.8 GHz with my current system on air. My secondary consideration is to minimize the cost of this upgrade.

If one of the optys mentioned would give me the best chance of doing this, then I will buy that opty, single or dual core. However, if the 4000+ San Diego has as good or better chance of doing this, then I will by the San Diego instead of an opty.

Given the 4000+ is 2.4 GHz at stock, it seems there should be a very good chance I could O/C it 400 MHz. And, from the reading I've done in this thread, this forum, and from the reviews at New Egg, it seems there would be less of a chance any opty doing the same. Of course if "you" don't see it that way, please let me know why and soon. I would like to order a CPU tonight. Thanks!

 

[Dan0512]

You'd only be able to hit 2.8ghz with the 165 if your board is 300+HTT capable. I don't know how good your board OCs, so I'd lean towards the 4000+.

dan

 

[satandole666]

The 4000+ will keep you happy for a little while at 2.8ghz but...

Spend the extra $90 and get a Opty 170. Your mobo should be fine with the 10x multiplier.

I went from a single core clocked at 2.6 to a dual core at 1.8 stock and the difference is AMAZING. Factor in 2.7ghz right now and I can't say that I would've made any other choice.

And remember...a dual core at less than 2.8 will be better than a single core at 2.8 or higher.

Spend the extra $$$ and get an intro level dual core. If you "really" want 2.8 get the 170...if not...get the 165.

 

[hUMANbEATbOX]

why do you need 2800mhz for a HTPC?

i would say keep the $$ in your pocket.

 

[Immortal_Hero]

2.8 outta a 165 will be tuff.... 2.7 will be much easier... For 2.7 you need a board that will do 300 mhz fsb. I just got mine and I am doing 2520 right now with an Ultra 120 and temps are pretty high... mid 50's @ 1.4v. If you are unsure of your board I would go with an Opty 170 since it has a higher multi. With the current prices on the 939 chips I see no reason not to go dual core.

 

[1Time]

The 4000+ will keep you happy for a little while at 2.8ghz but...

Spend the extra $90 and get a Opty 170. Your mobo should be fine with the 10x multiplier.

I went from a single core clocked at 2.6 to a dual core at 1.8 stock and the difference is AMAZING. Factor in 2.7ghz right now and I can't say that I would've made any other choice.

And remember...a dual core at less than 2.8 will be better than a single core at 2.8 or higher.

Spend the extra $$$ and get an intro level dual core. If you "really" want 2.8 get the 170...if not...get the 165.

IF, I were going to use this CPU for anything other than dedicated use in my HTPC, I definitely would go for a dual core and regardless of its likelihood of reaching 2.8. I would spend the extra money on the 165 and be happy with the increased performance over a single core.

However, to upgrade my existing single core CPU that's already reaching 2.35 MHz would not be worth it to me IF the new CPU would not likely reach at least 2.8. That just would not be enough of an upgrade to justify the expense of a new CPU. And, that the 4000+ San Diego is under $80 and seems very likely to reach 2.8, looks like it would be a win-win for me. I would get a very good chance of 2.8 CPU and for less money than a dual core opty.

I'm looking at it this way. A dual core opty would cost more money, be less likely to reach 2.8 with my current system, and likely would not perform noticeably better than a 4000+ San Diego at 2.8 with a HTPC.

And, an opty 170 for over $109 more than a 4000+... could the performance difference with a HTPC between a 170 and a 4000+ possibly be worth that additional expense?

I mean, is a dual core opty at over twice the cost of a 4000+ going to give me twice the performance of a 4000+ with my HTPC? If so, I'm there. However, I'm thinking the performance difference between the two will be very minimal, especially since I'm only going to use this CPU for my HTPC.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Nevrsumr22]

I'm with everyone else on the dual core. They aren't even making any new single core options as far as I know. You are going to have to bite the bullet at some point so might as well do it now.