Opteron 165 Vs. Athlon 2x 3800+

Any benchmark charts/opinions on which is better? Opteron 165 or Athlon 2x 3800+? Not really an overclocker. I guess I'll think about it a little down the road, when this isn't giving me what I need. But for the time being whitch will give me what I need? Right now I'm mostly a general user, but I would like to play newer games (Oblivion, FEAR, ect.) with ease and stability. Also right now I can actually get the Opteron for ~$25 lower the the 3800.
Who is Participating?
Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
I'd definitely go with the Opteron.   It's a more "industrial strength" design, has double the cache, and is clocked very similarly (1.8GHz vs 2.0GHz).   The higher percentage of cache hits will help your performance much more than the minor clocking difference.
Dual-Core Opteron 939   http://fab51.com/cpu/guide/opn-s939-e.html

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz, dual core, 512KB L2 per core)
AMD Opteron 165 (1.8GHz, dual core, 1MB L2 per core)
has double l2 cache and this makes it as fast as AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ may be even better when oc.

compare then here: http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/

it is made initially for servers and sounds better when you say OPTERON or OPTY.
all dual Optys have 2M l2 cache, not all ath64 have so much.
as far as i know is 100% compatible with ath64.
you can buy one tested in freq so you could be sure how much you can overclock it.
if you need stability when overclocking try to get DFI motherboards.

a benchmark: http://www.ocforums.com/archive/index.php/t-427073.html
Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
... the benchmark results Visual3DMaya posted in his last link clearly show what I said above => the extra cache helps enough that the Opteron beat the Athlon in almost every test.

... there's a reason Cray uses Opteron's in their latest supercomputer :-)  :-)
On-Demand: Securing Your Wi-Fi for Summer Travel

Traveling this summer?Check out our on-demand webinar to learn about the importance of Wi-Fi security and 3 easy measures you can start taking immediately to protect your private data while using public Wi-Fi. Follow us today to learn more!

Didn't you ask this same question here? http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardware/Q_21820031.html

There's a benchmark included in that thread http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/opteron-165-180/index.x?pg=1, which shows that the 3800+ has an edge over the 165.  The 165 is capable of much higher overclocking, though.
Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
Your previous question is pretty similar -- although it focused more on the different Opteron cores.   I don't agree with the answer to the other question (there is a substantial gain with doubling the L2 cache), but you seem to be focused on the Denmark core anyhow, so the result's the same.

I'm not an overclocker, but the Opteron's are, as I noted above, a "more industrial" design than the Athlons; and consequently they're much more "overclockable" -- should you ever decide to do that.   As Callandor noted in your last question, "... the low-end Opterons are phenomenal performers for the price.  A friend has an Opteron 148 that goes up to 2.75GHz, so it seems an achievable goal."

You're not looking at what I'd call a "low-end" Opteron here, but I think the focus of Callandor's statement still holds true:  they're excellent values.
I must come back and be more precise.
Opty 165 falls about 5-10% behind the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, the youngest processor in the corresponding family, in most applications (except the games), as says here among athers http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/opteron-165.html
I would prefer Opty 165, maybe i'll look for an Opty 170 too.
Games became annoying going slowly while some applications demand it otherwise you can't see what's going on.
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.