AMD Processor

[Bubblehead]

AMD has drastically reduced the price of their processors since Intel came out with its new chip. What is the most powerful AMD processor on the maket today. I wish to take advantage of the reduction in cost even though I don't need it. I prefer a single processor. While at it, I also wish to know the best ASUS motherboard for the AMD processor?

Thanks.  Bubblehead

[cheesegrater]

Well, the most powerful AMD Processors, the FX series didn't get a price reduction. By single processor do you mean single core? I would go with dual core because new programs are written to take advantage of dual cores.

On the 939 socket I would look at Asus A8N32-SLI with AMD 4400+ Toledo or AMD Opteron 165 Denmark. The 4400 is clocked at 2.2 GHZ and the Opteron is clocked at 1.8 GHZ. However, the Opteron overclocks higher. They both have 2x1MB cache.

They are the best value for the money. For example the 4800 Toledo costs about $100 more than 4400 Toledo but the only difference is 200 MHZ. The Opteron 170 costs about $100 more than Opteron 165 but again the difference is only 200 MHZ. You can spend $500 or $800 on the FASTEST AMD processor, but it will not be good value for the money. For that price you can get the new Intel chip.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813131568

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103588

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103546

On the AM2 socket, I got no idea.

[ctjoyce]

They are the best value for the money. For example the 4800 Toledo costs about $100 more than 4400 Toledo but the only difference is 200 MHZ. The Opteron 170 costs about $100 more than Opteron 165 but again the difference is only 200 MHZ. You can spend $500 or $800 on the FASTEST AMD processor, but it will not be good value for the money.

This depends entirely. See when they spin the silacone to make each core its not all spun the same. A 4800+ say only has 200Mhz on the 4400+ however when you go to clock it, you will be able to achieve a higher and more stable clock out of the 4800+ due to the higher quality die. So if your overclocking, it depends on what you want.

Also just a general note, stay away from Manchester cores. Not so good for gaming.

Cheers
Cameron

[congo]

I reckon the 4400+ and the 4800+ are, for all intents and purposes, identical other than their locked CPU multiplier.

[Joe_D]

The 4400  will OC nicely to 4800 speed with the right hardware.
I'm currenty runing an OCed 4400 and its been rock stable since Jan.

[ctjoyce]

And I'm running an almost 4Ghz 3.4 processer, but thats not what I was talking about. I mean when you push the clock all the way out to the max, the 4800+ will achieve a much higher percentage clock then the 4400+ will.

Cheers
Cameron

[congo]

Well, that's complete news to me Cameron, as far as I knew, they are sliced off the same silicon, binned and sold. If the silicon is good that week, any cpu is gonna have a better chance at high clocks, whether it's binned a 4400+ or a 4800+.

In some cases, the cores won't meet 4800+ standard without a safety margin and MAY get binned as 4400's, but I think you'll find most are the same cpu with a different multi.

Any inferior silicon is more likely to have half it's cache disabled and binned a 3800+ I would think.
If you know different, then please enlighten me with the details Cameron ?

Sometimes it's just pure luck. My last 3500+ would not budge over stock speed. At the time, it was an early release cpu, and they were probably scratching to meet orders. As time goes on, the manufacturing process is fine tuned and better yields of high quality silicon are the result

[cheesegrater]

Any inferior silicon is more likely to have half it's cache disabled and binned a 3800+ I would think.

I dunno about 3800 Venice, but people have gotten 3800 X2s that were actually Toledo instead of Manchester. I've seen people asking how to get a 3800 X2 Toledo instead of a Manchester thinking it will be better.

[ctjoyce]

@Congo: I was told that in refrence to Intel chips. But then again I could be completely wrong on the whole thing.

@Cheese: I don't think that the 3800+ comes in a Toledo, however it is a better core than manchester.

Cheers
Cameron

[congo]

In answer to the original question,

On socket 939, without going to the radical expense of an FX cpu, the AMD San Diego single cored cpu's are the best bang for buck while the Toledo X2 cores with 2mb L2 cache are the best dual core/dollar.

Socket AM2 requires a CPU with an even cpu mutiplier for best performance because the memory bus is reduced in speed with an odd cpu multiplier. (The odd multiplier may work to advantage in certain o/clocking situations, I'm not sure.) So for socket AM2, a CPU multiplier with 10x or 12x would be the best bang for buck.....

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop ... 4600IAA5CU

..... with the fx62 at the high end. The 3800+ in the above linked graph is a single core cpu.


Intel Conroe dual cores are producing very good value for money and their overclock potential puts them streets ahead of the AMD lineup.

[cheesegrater]

3800+ X2 can be a Toledo.

http://wiki.extremeoverclocking.com/wiki/Toledo

Note: The 3800+ X2 can have a manchester or toledo core. The toledo 3800+ X2 has half of the L2 cache disabled (512kb per core 1mb total). The extra 512kb of cache can not be unlocked.
You can check to see if you have a toledo or manchester core by checking the revision number. An E4 is a manchester core and the E6 is a toledo core. You can use the program CPUZ to find out what revision number you have. Note: CPUZ may incorrectly label a 3800+ X2 toledo core as a manchester.

[ctjoyce]

Good to know. Just assumed, as I hadnt found one on the market.

Cheers
Cameron

[congo]

You can actually get Toledo cored 3700+ cpu's that have 1 full core disabled