Is now a good time to buy a 144 opty?

[Boltaction]

I just bought one and I am wondering what other people think of them, and if they are a great deal for $136 shipped. I play games and overclock, and I will be using it with ddr500 and A8N SLI.

 

[talon64]

I just got mine a few days ago and it was a CAB2E stepping which is not as great as the CACJE steppings from a week earlier, so hopefully you'll be lucky and get the new stepping.

 

[junebug]

$136 for a chip that can go atleast 2.7 cant beat that...

I paid for an opty 170 for 350 which i'll be selling here shortly, but the 144 can perform just the same as the 170 the only difference is the 170 is dual core a higher multi and prolly a higher L2 cache...so yea..IMO, jump on the 144 now!

 

[TitaniumZX]

I almost jumped on it but I have a 3000+ Venice that does 2.7GHz easily and I really want a dual core for my next setup.

 

[nobody_here]

$136 for a chip that can go atleast 2.7 cant beat that...

I paid for an opty 170 for 350 which i'll be selling here shortly, but the 144 can perform just the same as the 170 the only difference is the 170 is dual core a higher multi and prolly a higher L2 cache...so yea..IMO, jump on the 144 now!

the 144 in most apps performs slower than the 170 at the same clockspeed, in smp apps, and many games now, the 170 would walk all over the 144

if i was contemplating building a gaming rig at this point in time, i would go dual core opty 165 or 3800 x2 at least, the only benchmark i have seen run faster on a single core cpu, clock for clock against a dual core cpu is Super PI, so unless being able to have the lowest Super PI time by two seconds is your thing......go for the dual core cpu's

 

[junebug]

the 144 in most apps performs slower than the 170 at the same clockspeed, in smp apps, and many games now, the 170 would walk all over the 144

if i was contemplating building a gaming rig at this point in time, i would go dual core opty 165 or 3800 x2 at least, the only benchmark i have seen run faster on a single core cpu, clock for clock against a dual core cpu is Super PI, so unless being able to have the lowest Super PI time by two seconds is your thing......go for the dual core cpu's

Or what this guy said...LOL, but the guy's question was about the 144 only, but as far as my 170 goes...Im totally happy with it, i can prime both cores stable at 2.6 and do other stuff too with out a hickup...wheather or not i can do that with the 144, that remains to be seen, but if i can pay 136 for 2.7 speeds, shiet...im all over it...ill try my 144 this weekend and see for my self....if its good, my 170 will be in the FS/FT forums...if not, the 144 will be my secondary PC...

 

[buzzly]

My Opty 165 can easily do 2.6ghz @ 1.45v, but needs 1.52v to do 2.7ghz. But my 144 can do 2.83ghz @ 1.4v stock. I am selling the Opty 165 on ebay now (just to get my money back -- I hope). It depends on what you need. I want a HTPC/basic task system and I am going with the lower-voltage (lower heat) system.

 

[botld92z]

hella happy with mine thus far. 2.6 ghz and im waiting on my team group ddr500 to get here some time next week so i can turn it up a bit more.

 

[Boltaction]

Well, I would have gotten a 165 or 70 but I couldn't afford the 2GB of DDR500 memory I got to go along with the new CPU. I see this match as a better deal since I can't spend hella cash

 

[nobody_here]

Well, I would have gotten a 165 or 70 but I couldn't afford the 2GB of DDR500 memory I got to go along with the new CPU. I see this match as a better deal since I can't spend hella cash

should have just gotten a nice set of 2x512Mb DDR400 instead and spent that extra $$ on the better CPU

the 165 or 170 is worth far far more than the 2GB of DDR500, most people hit 2.6-2.8Ghz with a 165 running DDR400 memory running a divider, like me, i run a 165 at 2.7Ghz(300x9) at only 1.475vcore for a "cool" 45*c full load temp with a set of DDR400 Crucial Ballistix 2x512Mb kit, so running a 300:250 divider, and it runs like a dream

compared to my 4000+ at 2.8Ghz, it's much faster, thats why i can say what i said, been there done that, my 2.7Ghz dual core is much faster than my 4000+ was at 2.8Ghz, and having 2Gb of DDR500 memory is a very poor reason to choose a 144 opty over a 165 for instance

my 2 cents

 

[Boltaction]

should have just gotten a nice set of 2x512Mb DDR400 instead and spent that extra $$ on the better CPU

the 165 or 170 is worth far far more than the 2GB of DDR500, most people hit 2.6-2.8Ghz with a 165 running DDR400 memory running a divider, like me, i run a 165 at 2.7Ghz(300x9) at only 1.475vcore for a "cool" 45*c full load temp with a set of DDR400 Crucial Ballistix 2x512Mb kit, so running a 300:250 divider, and it runs like a dream

compared to my 4000+ at 2.8Ghz, it's much faster, thats why i can say what i said, been there done that, my 2.7Ghz dual core is much faster than my 4000+ was at 2.8Ghz, and having 2Gb of DDR500 memory is a very poor reason to choose a 144 opty over a 165 for instance

my 2 cents

I needed 2GB, and DDR400 2GB would have been not much cheaper, preventing me from buying the dual core anyways. Besides, games like battlefield 2 love the extra memory at 1T timing. I agree with you for the most part, but I won't need dual core until later this year.

 

[nobody_here]

I needed 2GB, and DDR400 2GB would have been not much cheaper, preventing me from buying the dual core anyways. Besides, games like battlefield 2 love the extra memory at 1T timing. I agree with you for the most part, but I won't need dual core until later this year.

you dont need 2Gb either, i play all the newest games with 1Gb memory just fine, dual core CPU's make a much bigger difference than 2Gb vs. 1Gb, been there done that

 

[Adidas4275]

i disagree I had an x2 3800 @ 2.5 with 1gb of ddr400 and BF2 with Special Ops expansion was choppy... not FPS I was running 80+ but it was page filing about 300mb.....

Sold x2 bought 144 and 2gb of ocz ddr500 2gb dual channel for same price as i sold x2 and BF2 runs smooth as silk.... now CS:S could careless about the 2gb of ram and i saw no imcrease in performance, but rather a drop from about 145fps to 139fps in the stress stest.....

imo

 

[Boltaction]

you dont need 2Gb either, i play all the newest games with 1Gb memory just fine, dual core CPU's make a much bigger difference than 2Gb vs. 1Gb, been there done that

You've got to be crazy to think having 1GB is fine for the rest of the year. Yes, dual core is a really good thing to aim for, but using it with 1GB and parroting that it is faster "just because" is nonsense.

It's like having a race engine on a stock tranny. If the graphics+memory isn't up to par, quad core won't help. Remember I am playing games on this not burning DVD's and encoding while playing CS at the same time.

 

[nobody_here]

You've got to be crazy to think having 1GB is fine for the rest of the year. Yes, dual core is a really good thing to aim for, but using it with 1GB and parroting that it is faster "just because" is nonsense.

It's like having a race engine on a stock tranny. If the graphics+memory isn't up to par, quad core won't help. Remember I am playing games on this not burning DVD's and encoding while playing CS at the same time.

there have been too many reviews and analysis' done to show that 2Gb over 1Gb is like a 3% increase at best, and only on a couple of games then......the performance increase from dual core CPU's is far greater far more often, and if in 6 mos i need 2Gb to play some new game that comes out, fine, i only need 1Gb more memory, and already have my dual core CPU, so i am set

and yes, i play every new game out with 1Gb of memory just fine, 2Gb's of memory is overrated, far far overrated, it gives some a larger e-penis to say they have 2Gb's more than anything, like i said, been there done that, single core > dual core any day, 2Gb if you can afford it, but not at the cost of sacrificing a dual core CPU for a single core CPU

 

[Vengance_01]

I almost jumped on it but I have a 3000+ Venice that does 2.7GHz easily and I really want a dual core for my next setup.

ya I would say its not worth in your case.

 

[Boltaction]

i play every new game out with 1Gb of memory just fine, 2Gb's of memory is overrated, far far overrated, it gives some a larger e-penis to say they have 2Gb's more than anything, like i said, been there done that, single core > dual core any day, 2Gb if you can afford it, but not at the cost of sacrificing a dual core CPU for a single core CPU

"Nevertheless, there are now a few games that play better with 2GB of system memory. Although Battlefield 2 fails to demonstrate this with a 256MB graphics card, I still believe the game runs much better with 2GB of memory"
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=463&p=7

"With the two 512MB Corsair XL Pro modules, we found that we had to lower the in-game details to prevent hitching. Both lighting and effects had to be lowered to 'medium' in order to prevent the hitches when new textures were loading. The antialiasing details remained the same, but it was not possible to experience smooth gameplay with maximum details and only 1GB of memory."

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/02/15/memory_-_is_more_always_better/6.html

 

[nobody_here]

"Nevertheless, there are now a few games that play better with 2GB of system memory. Although Battlefield 2 fails to demonstrate this with a 256MB graphics card, I still believe the game runs much better with 2GB of memory"
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=463&p=7

"With the two 512MB Corsair XL Pro modules, we found that we had to lower the in-game details to prevent hitching. Both lighting and effects had to be lowered to 'medium' in order to prevent the hitches when new textures were loading. The antialiasing details remained the same, but it was not possible to experience smooth gameplay with maximum details and only 1GB of memory."

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/02/15/memory_-_is_more_always_better/6.html

oooo, one game plays slightly better with 2Gb's

not worth it if it means choosing between a single core CPU and dual core CPU, that was my point, right now, choosing to go single core with 2Gb's is dumb unless you only play BF2 and can't afford a dual core CPU and 2Gb's of memory

most people play more than one game, and the benefits from having 2Gb's of memory is nil other than BF2 basically, whereas the benefits from having a dual core CPU is seen in nearly every major game released recently and definately released any time going forward