• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

If you had the choice: Opteron 165 or X2 3800+

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Okagi

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Given all that you know about these two chips, which would you buy at this point? I saw a few threads where some said they'd rather have a X2 3800+ over the Opteron and then I saw a few threads where some were saying the Opteron 165 would OC higher with stock voltage. All a hair confusing, honestly. I like the fact that the Opteron has more L2 cache but that also makes the chip run a bit warmer, no?

I intend to put whichever chip in a ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe.
 
I would personally get the Opty, on average the Opterons are better overclockers than A64 X2s, that means it will probably hit higher speeds + will have the extra L2 cache. The only drawback is that these have x9 multiplier which requires a mobo that's capable of high HTTs to really crank up, while the X2 has a x10 multi and as most max at 2.6-2.8, most mobos can do 280MHz HTT.
 
Thank you, The Coolest.

Funny how the Opteron 165 is cheaper, too (whenever I look, anyway). I wonder why that is?
 
i was lookin at both i got the 165 the x2 3800 is 512 l2 cache the opti is 1 meg l2 cache and will probably overclock better then the x2 3800
 
Thank you for your testimonial. You guy's have me sold on the 165 now!

Just curious, what temps are you getting on your chip, -_{MoW}_-Assasi? I'm fairly familiar with that cooler you are using.

Thanks.
 
I just want to know how these perform in games, because I wouldn't want to buy one and the X2 is better for gaming.
 
Both would perform about the same in gaming, both are dual cores, both are clocked at 1.8ghz. Only difference is that the 165 has more cache, and obviously, more cache should yield better performance.
 
the 165 could do 2ghz easily.

my 170 at 2.5 doesnt even break 40c under gaming stress. runs cooler than my 4400 did for sure.
 
SteveLord said:
the 165 could do 2ghz easily.

my 170 at 2.5 doesnt even break 40c under gaming stress. runs cooler than my 4400 did for sure.

What CFM is the panaflo fan on that XP-90 your using, SteveLord? Also, how much voltage are you putting to the 170?

Thanks.
 
My 170 bearly breaks 40C (41C truely) doing 2.65Ghz :) With 1.485V though. Mind you I also don't have my IHS on my chip anymore too. Just with 1.45V and 2.6Ghz im just under 40C :) Not bad for a cheap 120mm Thermaltake Blue LED fan doing 7V.
 
Back