This change has most likely provoked a whole other bundle of pyschological issuesâ€â€namely, an identity crisis. Take the Opteron 180, for example. With 1MB of L2 cache for each of its two CPU cores and a 2.4GHz clock frequency, the 180 looks for all the world like an Athlon 64 X2 4800+. The main difference between the two? The name, pretty much. Now, that doesn't make the Opteron 180 a bad productâ€â€far from it, in factâ€â€but it may never escape comparisons to its Athlon 64 doppelganger.
The Opteron 100 series seems to have developed a tendency to overcompensate as a result of this troubled legacy, and the Opteron 165 is the apparent result. This unassuming processor is among the cheapest of AMD's dual-core processors, with a 1.8GHz clock rate and 1MB of L2 cache. Yet when plugged into an obliging enthusiast-class motherboard, the Opteron 165's overclocking prowess has earned it a rep for being more dangerous than Dick Cheney with a 20-gauge full of birdshot. How do these two dual-core Opteron processors fit into the larger picture, and will they ever find inner peace? Let's see what we can see.
Conclusions
Fortunately, characterizing the performance of these two CPUs is fairly easy, thanks to a startling amount of consistency in terms of relative performance across a range of benchmarks. The Opteron 180 performs exactly like an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, which is to say, exceptionally well. This thing outruns the Pentium D 950â€â€ostensibly its most direct competitor from Intelâ€â€virtually across the board. The Opteron 180 also outperforms the more expensive Pentium Extreme Edition 955 in the lion's share of our benchmark suite. For high-end, single-socket workstations, the Opteron 180 is as good as it gets right now. Only the Athlon 64 FX-60 is faster, but that chip is targeted at gaming PCs rather than workstations.
The performance picture for the Opteron 165 is more complex. More often than not, the 165 scores higher in the benchmarks than its closest real competitor, the Pentium D 930, but the Opteron 165 doesn't have nearly the dominance that the Opteron 180 does. Although AMD's K8 architecture delivers quite a bit of performance per clock, the Opteron 165's 1.8GHz clock speed is low enough to keep it from really exploiting that architectural advantage. The 165's relatively low memory bandwidth and high memory access latencies in our synthetic memory tests compared to the other K8 chips we tested are testaments to that fact. I would recommend stepping up to a higher clock speed if possible. At 2GHz, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ looks like a better option for those building their own systems, at least if we're talking about running at stock speeds.
Of course, another way of stepping up the frequency is to overclock the stuffing out of your CPU, and for that wonderfully questionable pursuit, the Opteron 165 is about as good as it gets. [Insert old-timer reference to Celeron 300A here.] There's no guarantee that the one you buy will reach 2.65GHz and run stable like ours did, but you can probably bet that it will reach well beyond its stock 1.8GHz and that its performance at that higher clock speed will be very nice indeed. For a relatively affordable dual-core PC enthusiast's processor, the Opteron 165 looks very attractive. The only thing is, you will need a heavily overclockable motherboard in order to reach the near-300MHz HyperTransport speeds we used to realize this chip's full potential. Some folks may wish to investigate the Opteron 170 as a possible alternative, especially given AMD's apparent efforts to slow supply of the 165. The 170's 10X multiplier will be easier on mediocre mobos, and may be worth the extra cash.
For the complete review visit Techreport
The Opteron 100 series seems to have developed a tendency to overcompensate as a result of this troubled legacy, and the Opteron 165 is the apparent result. This unassuming processor is among the cheapest of AMD's dual-core processors, with a 1.8GHz clock rate and 1MB of L2 cache. Yet when plugged into an obliging enthusiast-class motherboard, the Opteron 165's overclocking prowess has earned it a rep for being more dangerous than Dick Cheney with a 20-gauge full of birdshot. How do these two dual-core Opteron processors fit into the larger picture, and will they ever find inner peace? Let's see what we can see.
Conclusions
Fortunately, characterizing the performance of these two CPUs is fairly easy, thanks to a startling amount of consistency in terms of relative performance across a range of benchmarks. The Opteron 180 performs exactly like an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, which is to say, exceptionally well. This thing outruns the Pentium D 950â€â€ostensibly its most direct competitor from Intelâ€â€virtually across the board. The Opteron 180 also outperforms the more expensive Pentium Extreme Edition 955 in the lion's share of our benchmark suite. For high-end, single-socket workstations, the Opteron 180 is as good as it gets right now. Only the Athlon 64 FX-60 is faster, but that chip is targeted at gaming PCs rather than workstations.
The performance picture for the Opteron 165 is more complex. More often than not, the 165 scores higher in the benchmarks than its closest real competitor, the Pentium D 930, but the Opteron 165 doesn't have nearly the dominance that the Opteron 180 does. Although AMD's K8 architecture delivers quite a bit of performance per clock, the Opteron 165's 1.8GHz clock speed is low enough to keep it from really exploiting that architectural advantage. The 165's relatively low memory bandwidth and high memory access latencies in our synthetic memory tests compared to the other K8 chips we tested are testaments to that fact. I would recommend stepping up to a higher clock speed if possible. At 2GHz, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ looks like a better option for those building their own systems, at least if we're talking about running at stock speeds.
Of course, another way of stepping up the frequency is to overclock the stuffing out of your CPU, and for that wonderfully questionable pursuit, the Opteron 165 is about as good as it gets. [Insert old-timer reference to Celeron 300A here.] There's no guarantee that the one you buy will reach 2.65GHz and run stable like ours did, but you can probably bet that it will reach well beyond its stock 1.8GHz and that its performance at that higher clock speed will be very nice indeed. For a relatively affordable dual-core PC enthusiast's processor, the Opteron 165 looks very attractive. The only thing is, you will need a heavily overclockable motherboard in order to reach the near-300MHz HyperTransport speeds we used to realize this chip's full potential. Some folks may wish to investigate the Opteron 170 as a possible alternative, especially given AMD's apparent efforts to slow supply of the 165. The 170's 10X multiplier will be easier on mediocre mobos, and may be worth the extra cash.
For the complete review visit Techreport
hyeah:
! No probs 
