[kevin_tsoi2000]

I'm upgrading my computer, but I'm not sure weather to choose the opty or the 3200+. The opty is only at 1.8 and 3200+ is at 2.0, but how do their OCs differ? I don't have very good cooling but hopefully add a zalman 7000 eventually, if my case isn't too small. In other words, I'm not expecting a very high OC. So which one would be better?

 

[kevin_tsoi2000]

Bump

 

[ThaWaxShop]

Well even though i really am against the opteron fad.... get the 144 it has the extra cache, 200mhz is easily made up by overclocking (which i believe it would be made up just from the extra cache)

 

[kevin_tsoi2000]

Any more opinions? Again, remember I won't be able to OC too much.

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin_tsoi2000 Any more opinions? Again, remember I won't be able to OC too much.

If you're leaving it at stock, then get the 3200+. If you intend to overclock then I'd get the Opty as it should go further than the 3200+ on stock voltage.

 

[kevin_tsoi2000]

Also, how will the 1MB L2 catch effect gaming performance?

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin_tsoi2000 Also, how will the 1MB L2 catch effect gaming performance?

It's unlikely to do a great deal. Depends where your bottleneck is, but it may get you a few FPS extra. The extra cache is really of benefit when dealing with large quantities of info like media encoding, photoshop work etc.

 

[tytlyf]

I disagree with Ste, I would get the 144 either way...if you plan on leaving it stock, still get the 144. The 144 will perform the same as the 3200 stock vs stock. But if you decide to overclock, then the 144 will definetly blow the 3200 out of the water, and produce much better performance.

 

[Cait Sith Cat]

Depends on your mobo capability. I got the 3200+ for its x10 multi: I would be at about 2100MHz with the opty instead of 2400 with the 3200+. That is the bigger diff. than 512k L2.

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tytlyf I disagree with Ste, I would get the 144 either way...if you plan on leaving it stock, still get the 144. The 144 will perform the same as the 3200 stock vs stock. But if you decide to overclock, then the 144 will definetly blow the 3200 out of the water, and produce much better performance.

The 3200+ would outperform the 144 on everything at stock?? It has an extra 200Mhz clock speed.

 

[Jazino]

i also agree with the opty 144 over the 3200. not by a mile but the extra cache should make them nearly even at stock and the opty should overclock a few hundred mghz without raising the temps much. 2.0-2.1 with stock voltage and little to no temp rise should be reasonable, maybe a bit more.

 

[Diablo_MGSx2]

both will go to 3.0 ghz with a little work if you have the cooling ... seems like they both run into problems once you hit around 2.8 tho ...

 

[tytlyf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste The 3200+ would outperform the 144 on everything at stock?? It has an extra 200Mhz clock speed.

the extra cache makes up the gap.

 

[kevin_tsoi2000]

Cait Sith Cat, I'm going to be getting the same mobo as you. Are you saying the 3200+ would before better than the opty on that mobo? Could you give me reason's why? I'm not the most imformed about OCing, but I get the basics for it, but why do you believe the 3200+ would be better on that mobo?

 

[r3tard]

If you have the money go opteron! 3200's you can get pretty cheap, That's why I'm getting one!

But the opteron will pwn the 3200 due to larger cache and basically, just think of one as a 3700 san diego. Same cache, Same overclocking results *kinda* but a bit of a lower price. These things can hit 2.4 EASY without even breaking a sweat on stock voltage and stock coolers from what I've seen. Throw some AS5 on that heatsink and clock like mad.

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tytlyf the extra cache makes up the gap.

The extra 512kb of L2 cache doesn't equal 200Mhz. This was just a rating that AMD gave the 3700+ over the 3500+ with the same clock speed.
Here's a test that Mr Mumbles did:
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/59...vs-3500-a.html

 

[kevin_tsoi2000]

Thanks Ste for the benchmarks, they were very helpful. What kinda OC would I get on stock vcore and stock cooling on the 3200+ and 144?

 

[Hellgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste It's unlikely to do a great deal. Depends where your bottleneck is, but it may get you a few FPS extra. The extra cache is really of benefit when dealing with large quantities of info like media encoding, photoshop work etc.

The additional cache means great deal in gaming, It is a big advantage in favor of the opteron 144, Which is very likely to hit 2.8 GHz BTW.
The E4 memory controller is older then the E6 therefore it's worse...
I have a friend with an 3200 Venice, and it requires some juice for overclock that the opteron is most likely to achieve on stock voltages(2.4 GHz).
Good luck!.

 

[Ste]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellgy The additional cache means great deal in gaming, It is a big advantage in favor of the opteron 144, Which is very likely to hit 2.8 GHz BTW. The E4 memory controller is older then the E6 therefore it's worse... I have a friend with an 3200 Venice, and it requires some juice for overclock that the opteron is most likely to achieve on stock voltages(2.4 GHz). Good luck!.

It would depend where the bottleneck is for the game. Most new games run mainly from the GFX, and therefore, this is normally the bottleneck.
If the CPU was the bottleneck, then the extra L2 cache would be of some benefit. However, most new games, when played at 1024x768 res or higher will see next to no benefit in having the extra L2 cache.

Here's a benchmark between the 3500+ and the 3700+: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1815&page=6
You can see there's a slight advantage for the 3700+ at lower resolutions due to the L2 cache as the GFX is not the bottleneck. Increase the res though and this will disappear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin_tsoi2000 Thanks Ste for the benchmarks, they were very helpful. What kinda OC would I get on stock vcore and stock cooling on the 3200+ and 144?

It would depend on the stepping that you got for the Opteron. On average though, i'd say that the Opteron would perform better than the Venice at stock volts though. Should hit 2.4Ghz+ with a decent CPU

 

[tytlyf]

either way its a good general rule to view the extra cache as an additional 150-200 mhz. At least this is how it played when I tested the differences. The 144 is the better option hands down, stock or overclocked.