Finally moving to intel? Opteron 165 to E8400

M

mr saturn

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
205
Hey guys, I have an overclocked Opteron 165 (2.5 ghz on stock volts). Problem is, this thing gets waay too hot now that I have a 9600gt pushing it. I have to pop the side off my p180 and crank the fan on the xp-120 to max.

I also use this computer for work (development), multitasking a lot. At any given time I'll have SQL server, several instances of visual studio, ~10 tabs in firefox, and winamp outputting ASIO. I realize a quad might be a good idea here but my main problem is related to gaming, so I figure clock speed should trump core count.

I'd like a chip that can handle things easier so I can turn all 5 120mm fans down to low. I just don't know if it's worth it to change the motherboard, ram and processor just for a 500 mhz upgrade. Would an E8400 be THAT much better than an Opteron 165 @ 2.5? Are there factors other than the clockspeed worth considering? I don't want to overclock right away as my main concern is getting a 'fast-enough' cpu that will run cool and quiet, even while gaming.
 
First off...once you switch to any Core 2 (Duo or Quad), you're going to feel a huge speed boost. I switched from an X2 4600+ @ 2.7ghz to an e6420 (ran at 3.2) and it was significantly faster. Hell just the super pi 1M times were almost halved.

My Q6700 runs around 3.6ghz, which is the avg max oc for the Q6600/6700. And I'm guessing alot of people shoot for the 4ghz mark w/ the e8400s. When I was deciding b/t the two it made more sense to me to get the quad since I'm pretty sure my 8800GTS will be the bottleneck in either case. And that's probably true for the 9600gt as well.

If all those other programs aren't going to be running when you're gaming, then a dual core will be fine. I got the quad core for video encoding so to each his own.

Anyway all that is debatable. But to answer your questions ...an e8400 would a HUGE leap from an Opteron 165. In fact if you go on toms hardware and check the cpu charts, it may have both cpus listed for the various benchmarks.

An
 
I'm still using the same case I've had since 2003 (Tbred, XP-M, Opt, Wolfy). I think it's safe to say that my case temps have dropped drastically in the last two generations. In terms of power, the e8400 at stock blew past my single Opty, and at 4Ghz, the difference is silly. And oh yeah - still much less thermal output.

I also support staying with DFI :D
 
500MHz upgrade. That's funny.

More like a few GHz upgrade once you overclock the E8400 and notice how badly it tramples the opty 165.
 
I just switched from an opty 165 @ 2.5 GHz as well to a E7200 @ 3.8GHz. Granted I also went from a x1900xt to a 9600GT too, but CPU power wise I have noticing a good amount more responsiveness and speed.

I am sure the E8400 will provide a slight better, is at all noticeable in real world use, but I got the E7200 cause it fit into my budget.

Go for it!
 
mwarps said:
500MHz upgrade. That's funny.

More like a few GHz upgrade once you overclock the E8400 and notice how badly it tramples the opty 165.
Click to expand...

K guys, I figured I'd be getting the overclock argument [h]ard and strong but like I said in the OP I don't want to have to cool an E8400 like I do my 165 (side off, fan cranked). I want comfortable temps at low fan speeds, even at full load. Can I run an E8400 at ~4ghz cooled by a tricool set to low strapped to an xp-120? (Oof that was a mouthful haha)

If so it looks like I'm upgrading tomorrow.

Thanks for the input though, I didn't realize how much better the Intel offerings have gotten.
 
mr saturn said:
but like I said in the OP I don't want to have to cool an E8400 like I do my 165 (side off, fan cranked). I want comfortable temps at low fan speeds, even at full load. Can I run an E8400 at ~4ghz cooled by a tricool set to low strapped to an xp-120? .
Click to expand...

my E7200 I use a Xigmatek s1283 120mm HSF (36.99 at the egg), it runs at 1400RPM can barely here it, 9600GT is louder, keeps it nice and cool, I live the desert and my opty165 ran at like 48c idle and the E7200 runs 31c idle
 
Well, you do a lot more than game. I'd get a quad vs. a dual.
 
mr saturn said:
K guys, I figured I'd be getting the overclock argument [h]ard and strong but like I said in the OP I don't want to have to cool an E8400 like I do my 165 (side off, fan cranked). I want comfortable temps at low fan speeds, even at full load. Can I run an E8400 at ~4ghz cooled by a tricool set to low strapped to an xp-120? (Oof that was a mouthful haha)

If so it looks like I'm upgrading tomorrow.

Thanks for the input though, I didn't realize how much better the Intel offerings have gotten.
Click to expand...

Uh who gave you that idea? I'm using the quietest 120mm money can buy & typical TR-120E. I think it's safe to say that, like my case temps, CPU cooler noise has dropped dramatically as well. My HSF is easily quieter than a 70% speed AC Freezer 64 Pro that I came from. In terms of thermals, I pretty sure the e8400, OCed, is probably still giving off less heat than my old single core Opty OCed. To summarize: 2 cores. Better IPC. Better thermals. Better OC. Better scalability. Can you see why I dropped my AMD allegiance?

Yeah first time I paid more than $120 for a CPU, but a $70 premium is ok to stomach here.
 
Daamn! This is all sounding really really awesome. Thanks for the input! I'm kinda torn on quad vs dual core though. I imagine most applications won't see much difference past 3ghz, so why push an 8400 to 4ghz when I could push a 6600 to 3.5ghz? I'm sure many of you have heard that argument.. :D My games would run really nicely keeping the 9600gt fed, and I'd (hopefully) notice a difference while working with four cores. But 4ghz.. Maaan that's a nice number.

I'll mull over that for the next couple days. Definitely thanks for the advice, the ol 165 seems so.. dated now.
 
Yeah that's the big question these days, quad or dual? Just do a search throughout the Intel or overclocking subforum and you'll find a ton of threads about that question.
 
Q6600 vote here - you do more than game and would make use of those extra 2 cores. I just went from an Opty 185 to Q6600 and it's a noticable improvement. Q6600 is running nice and cool - load rarely above 62c - at 8 x 400 when the ambient is hot. It will actually run at 9 x 400 but the voltage required introduces heat issues so I had to settle for only 33% overclock. :)
 
Yeah you seem like a candidate for quad, and a q6600 at 3.2Ghz will be both cool and have enough horsepower to get the job done.

How often do you max out your opteron? The Q6600 is really cheap now, so it's probably the best bang for the buck.
 
Q6600, it's basically the same price as the e8400 and should be able to reach 3.6 pretty easily (3.4 at least). I really don't see why people would buy a dual when they can get a quad for the same price, granted the e8400 might be able to hit 4.0 but I'd much rather have a quad at 3.6 than a dual at 4.0. You aren't going to see a difference in games between 3.6 quad and 4.0 dual and you can do so much more with the quad. Especially since you do a lot of multitasking!
 
Thanks for all the advice! I'm seriously considering the 6600, just looking for a good deal on it before I pull the trigger (Canadian here so newegg isn't an option). DFI availability here has taken a nosedive, would the Asus P5K be alright to shoot for a 3.4 overclock?

Just hope the heat won't kill me.. That's why I want to get away from the opty. I don't max it right out often, but under load in call of duty it definitely gets too hot. Low 60s and it starts to do some really odd stuff..
 
I went from the DFI LanParty to the ABit IP35 Pro and I'm happy with it and, subjectively, it compares great with my DFI experience. Lots of people have them, easy to find info on overclocking, stable, etc. I'm sure the Asus board is an excellent board too. Same case as your DFI too in fact - Antec P180! Go us!! :D

I was able to find the Abit on sale with a rebate for only $100 but it was via NewEgg.
 
While the architecture is MILES better, I didn't get blown away by the performance of a Core2 compared to my 2.6Ghz Opty165. Sure, it was a bit noticeable, but my Opty system could handle A LOT! I wouldnt even notice a virus scan go off while encoding video, ripping some media, playing poker, having at least 20 tabs open, while watching a movie and playing CSS (dual monitors ftw). Its the same with my Core2Duo, but its even more seemless with my Core2Quad. So, my point is, if you want to notice the biggest difference, get a Q6600 for $200.
 
P5K series is good, I suggest getting the P5K-e, other good boards are the Neo2-FR and the Gigabyte P35 series is also good. You're in canada, with a good HSF (S1283) you can reach 3.6 pretty easily. My Q6600 hits 72c at max load on all 4 cores but is 100% stable and it only gets that hot when it's at max on all 4 cores so who cares :D
 
enginurd said:
While the architecture is MILES better, I didn't get blown away by the performance of a Core2 compared to my 2.6Ghz Opty165. Sure, it was a bit noticeable, but my Opty system could handle A LOT! I wouldnt even notice a virus scan go off while encoding video, ripping some media, playing poker, having at least 20 tabs open, while watching a movie and playing CSS (dual monitors ftw). Its the same with my Core2Duo, but its even more seemless with my Core2Quad. So, my point is, if you want to notice the biggest difference, get a Q6600 for $200.
Click to expand...

This is great, I run dual monitor as well. Replace CSS (for now anyway) with Cod4 andthat's pretty much my average task list.

Definitely going with a quad. I told myself I wouldn't overclock too much but who am I kidding. Besides, if it's stable at higher temps then who's gonna know? Once the opty gets above 55 things start to break down. Oooh I like that MSI board.

Would this ram be alright for getting to ~3.4ghz on a 6600? Assuming everything else makes the grade of course. From what I can tell this would max out at 3.6ghz, yeah?

And... Yet another question: do the newer quads (9 series) run significantly cooler? Do they overlock well?
 
The 9 series do run a lot cooler, but not worth the extra $100 or so (the only one worth getting would be the q9450). The Q9450 will OC about the same as the Q6600 and the Q9300 won't be able to OC as high as the Q6600. PC 6400 ram is fine for 3.6 on a q6600, 3.6 = 400 x 9, if ram is set to 1:1 then it'll be running at PC6400.
 
Yes, you'll top out around 3.6Ghz. 3.2Ghz should be cake, but you'll need some work for 3.6Ghz.

You won't notice a difference between CL4 and CL5, unless you're running benchmarks (and even then, the difference is negligible), so don't pay a huge price premium for lower latency.

/*------------- <cut n paste> -------------*/
Formulas for Intel platform @ 1:1 settings: (base FSB speed is SDR, or single data rate)
c × [Base FSB speed] = CPU Clock speed (c = CPU Multiplier)
2 × [Base FSB speed] = RAM speed (DDR: double data rate)
4 × [Base FSB speed] = Effective FSB speed (QDR: quad data rate)

On Intel platforms, running the RAM higher than a 1:1 ratio with the CPU is, for the most part, useless, so don't bother trying to do so. If the BIOS does it for you, just let it. All you need is a 1:1 config, though. Here's some possible clock speeds (as always with OC'ing, your results will vary):

Q6600: 9 × 266 = 2.4Ghz, DDR2-533 << STOCK speeds
Q6600: 9 × 333 = 3.0Ghz, DDR2-667 << Nice OC
Q6600: 9 × 378 = 3.4Ghz, DDR2-756 << Good OC, near max for B3 stepping w/ good air cooling
Q6600: 9 × 400 = 3.6Ghz, DDR2-800 << Great OC, near max for G0 stepping w/ good air cooling
/*------------- </cut n paste> -------------*/

The Yorkfield chips (Q9000 series) do run cooler, and OC great, but as Mastaflash said, their OC limit is similar to the Q6600... around 3.6Ghz. Despite it being the same clock speed, just remember that the multiplier is lower on the Q9450, so you'll have to push a higher FSB -- which quads don't really like, and thats probably why it max's out around there. The only significant difference in performance would be if your apps/games took explicit advantage of SSE4, as thats the only thing the Yorkfields have that the Kentsfields don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top