3200+ vs. opty 144
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?
21 - 24 of 24 Posts
Joined
·
3,124 Posts
Quote:
Okay, here are some gaming results:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=241&chart=50
If you compare the 3800+ and the 3700+ (extra 200Mhz vs the extra L2 cache) on every gaming benchmark except Doom3 the extra clock speed gave extra gaming performance. The only reason that Doom3 was equal was because the bottleneck is on the GFX in this game at these resolutions, so the CPU speed doesn't matter a great deal.
I do agree that the Opteron is almost certainly the better overclocker, but the 3200+ is the better CPU at stock
![]()
Originally Posted by 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. |
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=241&chart=50
If you compare the 3800+ and the 3700+ (extra 200Mhz vs the extra L2 cache) on every gaming benchmark except Doom3 the extra clock speed gave extra gaming performance. The only reason that Doom3 was equal was because the bottleneck is on the GFX in this game at these resolutions, so the CPU speed doesn't matter a great deal.
I do agree that the Opteron is almost certainly the better overclocker, but the 3200+ is the better CPU at stock
Quote:
3200 Venice is definitely his premier choice if he has no intention to overclock...
It is very cheap and has the E6 memory controller which means a great deal,
supports all the newest instructions, Also overclocks pretty nicely, tho no match for the Opty 144 in this field...
As i wrote previously the 144 can be easily pushed up to 2.4 GHz without
raising the voltages(Unless it's the crappy CABGE)...
The Venice will require 1.5-1.6 volts to run prime stable at those clocks.
They both can hit 3Ghz the only difference is that it's much more easy to achieve with the Opty, and you will most likely won't need to raise the voltage much beyond 1.6V, while the 3200 may require more then 1.7V, which is only possible on water cooling or phase change, without endangering the CPU.
Originally Posted by Ste Okay, here are some gaming results: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=241&chart=50 If you compare the 3800+ and the 3700+ (extra 200Mhz vs the extra L2 cache) on every gaming benchmark except Doom3 the extra clock speed gave extra gaming performance. The only reason that Doom3 was equal was because the bottleneck is on the GFX in this game at these resolutions, so the CPU speed doesn't matter a great deal. I do agree that the Opteron is almost certainly the better overclocker, but the 3200+ is the better CPU at stock
|
It is very cheap and has the E6 memory controller which means a great deal,
supports all the newest instructions, Also overclocks pretty nicely, tho no match for the Opty 144 in this field...
As i wrote previously the 144 can be easily pushed up to 2.4 GHz without
raising the voltages(Unless it's the crappy CABGE)...
The Venice will require 1.5-1.6 volts to run prime stable at those clocks.
They both can hit 3Ghz the only difference is that it's much more easy to achieve with the Opty, and you will most likely won't need to raise the voltage much beyond 1.6V, while the 3200 may require more then 1.7V, which is only possible on water cooling or phase change, without endangering the CPU.
21 - 24 of 24 Posts
