4.1 GHz 805D???

[Mr Vain]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: gplracer
I think the most valid question here would be how does this cpu when overclocked to a reasonable level compare with a similar priced single core opteron that is overclocked to a reasonable level.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Have you read this review?
It may answer your question.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/

 

[Mr Vain]

Originally posted by: gplracer
I think the most valid question here would be how does this cpu when overclocked to a reasonable level compare with a similar priced single core opteron that is overclocked to a reasonable level.?

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/page44.html

But it is true: a cheap CPU that costs $130 outperforms the fastest processors from AMD (Athlon 64 FX-60) and Intel (Pentium Extreme Edition 965), each of which costs over $1,000.

In language that overclocking enthusiasts will love to hear, the Pentium D 805 ascends to the throne as the new King of overclocking, knocking out the AMD Opteron 144.

Things look the same for the top-of-the-line AMD processor, the Athlon 64 FX-60, which also fell behind in most of our benchmarking categories.

Not sure if they were comparing to an overclocked Opteron?

 

[gplracer]

It looks like it is faster than most single core opterons. I was just curious. My 148 opteron is running at 2.91ghz. It would appear that in the price range of $130 for a processor the 805 gives the best bang for the buck. I would think a reasonable expectation of overclocking it to around 3.6-3.8 would be fair.

 

[Markfw]

You keep forgetting that you need an exspensive motherboard, and exspensive cooling to get the 4.1, where the 144 does NOT. I have one, and I have seen several others at the same speed. 3.5 is the best you can get with a cheap motherboard, and that still requires good memory, and aftermarket cooling. The 144 needs none of the above. At 4.1, you need all three, good motherboard, memory and cooling. And then there is that nasty heat issue....

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You keep forgetting that you need an exspensive motherboard, and exspensive cooling to get the 4.1, where the 144 does NOT. I have one, and I have seen several others at the same speed. 3.5 is the best you can get with a cheap motherboard, and that still requires good memory, and aftermarket cooling. The 144 needs none of the above. At 4.1, you need all three, good motherboard, memory and cooling. And then there is that nasty heat issue....

Don't forget needing a good power supply too..that seems to be the limiter for mine.

 

[imported_Questar]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You keep forgetting that you need an exspensive motherboard, and exspensive cooling to get the 4.1, where the 144 does NOT. I have one, and I have seen several others at the same speed. 3.5 is the best you can get with a cheap motherboard, and that still requires good memory, and aftermarket cooling. The 144 needs none of the above. At 4.1, you need all three, good motherboard, memory and cooling. And then there is that nasty heat issue....

All of which combined costs less than a FX-60.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Questar

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You keep forgetting that you need an exspensive motherboard, and exspensive cooling to get the 4.1, where the 144 does NOT. I have one, and I have seen several others at the same speed. 3.5 is the best you can get with a cheap motherboard, and that still requires good memory, and aftermarket cooling. The 144 needs none of the above. At 4.1, you need all three, good motherboard, memory and cooling. And then there is that nasty heat issue....

All of which combined costs less than a FX-60.

Why would you compare it to an FX-60 in the first place..you should compare it to an the overclocking of an Opty 165 or 3800+ X2, and even overvolted on water cooling, the 805@4.1ghz doesn't perform better than an X2 @2.5-2.6ghz.

 

[Absolute0]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You keep forgetting that you need an exspensive motherboard, and exspensive cooling to get the 4.1, where the 144 does NOT. I have one, and I have seen several others at the same speed. 3.5 is the best you can get with a cheap motherboard, and that still requires good memory, and aftermarket cooling. The 144 needs none of the above. At 4.1, you need all three, good motherboard, memory and cooling. And then there is that nasty heat issue....

Mark, AFAIK a good OC doesn't require good memory because of dividers.

 

[imported_Questar]

the 805@4.1ghz doesn't perform better than an X2 @2.5-2.6ghz.

Benches show data that disagree with your statement.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Absolute0

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You keep forgetting that you need an exspensive motherboard, and exspensive cooling to get the 4.1, where the 144 does NOT. I have one, and I have seen several others at the same speed. 3.5 is the best you can get with a cheap motherboard, and that still requires good memory, and aftermarket cooling. The 144 needs none of the above. At 4.1, you need all three, good motherboard, memory and cooling. And then there is that nasty heat issue....

Mark, AFAIK a good OC doesn't require good memory because of dividers.

Well I have some PC4200, and it wouldn;t do squal with a 400 divider. Then I used my OCZ PC 5400 good ddr, and got 3.5 on my 805. Same goes for my 820, which is now only running at 3.0 ghz with that crappy memory. and at the same 400 divider.

Originally posted by: Questar

the 805@4.1ghz doesn't perform better than an X2 @2.5-2.6ghz.

Benches show data that disagree with your statement.

And I have both and so does Stevty and thats we we see. Links to prove us wrong ?

 

[Faikius]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

And I have both and so does Stevty and thats we we see. Links to prove us wrong ?

I hate to point this out, again, but neither of you have an 805 running at 4.1Ghz to compare to.

Using your results at 3.5 to extrapolate performance numbers isn't the best methodology.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Faikius

Originally posted by: Markfw900

And I have both and so does Stevty and thats we we see. Links to prove us wrong ?

I hate to point this out, again, but neither of you have an 805 running at 4.1Ghz to compare to.

Using your results at 3.5 to extrapolate performance numbers isn't the best methodology.

And if you click on the link on the first page of this thread, and look at the benchmarks, the FX-60 at stock speeds, which is 2.6ghz is evenly matched with the 4.1ghz 805 in almost every test..so like we have said all along, 4.1ghz 805 performs about the same as X2 @ 2.5-2.6ghz..but they needed water cooling, and very high voltage to get it to 4.1ghz..while an X2 can overclock to 2.6ghz on the stock heatsink..

 

[Markfw]

Actually, since an X2@2.6 would have a higher fsb, it would likely beat an 805@4.1 easy, certainly faster than an FX-60. And again, you also need a spendy motherboard and good memory and a good power supply as well as watercooling, so the X2 still wins performance, and price/performance.

 

[Absolute0]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
And if you click on the link on the first page of this thread, and look at the benchmarks, the FX-60 at stock speeds, which is 2.6ghz is evenly matched with the 4.1ghz 805 in almost every test.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/page29.html
PD@4.1 vs. stock FX60

Fear 1 PD@4.0 wins
Fear 2 PD@4.1 wins
Fear 3 PD@4.1 wins
Quake 3 PD@4.1 wins
Quake 4 PD@4.1 wins
Autodesk FX60 wins
Clone CD FX60 wins
Divx PD@4.1 wins
Mainconcept MPEG Tie
Pinnacle Studio 10 PD@4.1 wins
WME 9 PD@4.1 wins
Xvid 1.0 PD@4.1 wins
Lame MP3 FX60 wins
OGG PD@4.1 wins
AVG FX60 wins
ABBYY Finereader PD@4.1 wins
Adobe Photoshop PD@4.1 wins
Finereader + AVG FX60 wins
Winrar 3.51 PD@4.1 wins
Winrar + lame PD@4.1 wins
Winrar + lame + ogg + wmv PD@4.1 wins
3dmark05 PD@4.1 wins
3dmark05 CPU FX60 wins
PCmark05 PD@4.1 wins
PCmark05 memory PD@4.1 wins
Sandra MIPS PD@4.1 wins
Sandra Whetstone MIPS FX60 wins
Sandra Multimedia FX60 wins
Sandra Multimedia floating point PD@4.1 wins
Sandra Memory bandwidth FX60 wins
Sandra Memory floating point FX60 wins

Total wins
805D @ 4.1 Ghz: 20
FX60: 10

I can't help but think you're slightly biased against the Intel. I know that you have the 805D and 165 and that, overclocking considered, a 165 is a better buy, but for 130$ it's just hard to justify the hatin' lol. Last i checked, 130$ buys you a 3000+ A64.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Absolute0

Originally posted by: stevty2889
And if you click on the link on the first page of this thread, and look at the benchmarks, the FX-60 at stock speeds, which is 2.6ghz is evenly matched with the 4.1ghz 805 in almost every test.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/page29.html
PD@4.1 vs. stock FX60

Fear 1 PD@4.0 wins
Fear 2 PD@4.1 wins
Fear 3 PD@4.1 wins
Quake 3 PD@4.1 wins
Quake 4 PD@4.1 wins
Autodesk FX60 wins
Clone CD FX60 wins
Divx PD@4.1 wins
Mainconcept MPEG Tie
Pinnacle Studio 10 PD@4.1 wins
WME 9 PD@4.1 wins
Xvid 1.0 PD@4.1 wins
Lame MP3 FX60 wins
OGG PD@4.1 wins
AVG FX60 wins
ABBYY Finereader PD@4.1 wins
Adobe Photoshop PD@4.1 wins
Finereader + AVG FX60 wins
Winrar 3.51 PD@4.1 wins
Winrar + lame PD@4.1 wins
Winrar + lame + ogg + wmv PD@4.1 wins
3dmark05 PD@4.1 wins
3dmark05 CPU FX60 wins
PCmark05 PD@4.1 wins
PCmark05 memory PD@4.1 wins
Sandra MIPS PD@4.1 wins
Sandra Whetstone MIPS FX60 wins
Sandra Multimedia FX60 wins
Sandra Multimedia floating point PD@4.1 wins
Sandra Memory bandwidth FX60 wins
Sandra Memory floating point FX60 wins

Total wins
805D @ 4.1 Ghz: 20
FX60: 10

I can't help but think you're slightly biased against the Intel.

Yes, but look at how close they actualy are, there are no significant wins for either. And if you haven't noticed, I have 4 Intel systems, and 1 AMD system...and I definatly could care less for the synthetics, I don't sit here and run those all day, but I do do encoding, and my X2 system beats all of my Intel systems plain and simple, and even if I spent another $100 for a better power supply, and got an improved $250 water cooling system, it would still only keep up with my X2, but end up costing more in the end.

 

[Absolute0]

Alright, screw synthetics, we're here using the computer in windows most of the time and i can't tell 2 Ghz from 3.15 Ghz on my 170. So why should i feel the difference between 2 Ghz and the 805D? The only place it's going to make a difference is benchmarks, and games, which are 70% GPU bound anyway. So for some people, a 200$ CPU/mobo combo that runs the 2.66 @ 3.0 Ghz stock cooler is worth it. Based on that exact price bracket, their other choices are Sempron, socket 754, or a 3000+ with a mobo, possibly a 3200+ with a really cheap mobo. Do you see what i'm getting at?


I pose a question, given 200$ for the CPU/mobo combination, what do you buy?



My point isn't that the 805D outperforms anything, it's that it has a certain niche at a certain price point where IT IS A GOOD BUY.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Absolute0
Alright, screw synthetics, we're here using the computer in windows most of the time and i can't tell 2 Ghz from 3.15 Ghz on my 170. So why should i feel the difference between 2 Ghz and the 805D? The only place it's going to make a difference is benchmarks, and games, which are 70% GPU bound anyway. So for some people, a 200$ CPU/mobo combo that runs the 2.66 @ 3.0 Ghz stock cooler is worth it. Based on that exact price bracket, their other choices are Sempron, socket 754, or a 3000+ with a mobo, possibly a 3200+ with a really cheap mobo. Do you see what i'm getting at?


I pose a question, given 200$ for the CPU/mobo combination, what do you buy?



My point isn't that the 805D outperforms anything, it's that it has a certain niche at a certain price point where IT IS A GOOD BUY.

Well if you want to game you wouldn't buy an Intel P-D...I would get a single core AMD cpu...

According to pricewatch the cheapest 805D I see is 130 shipped....So you get a 70 dollar mobo...easily can be done with an AMD 64 even sckt 939


Get a 3200+ AMD64 90nm sckt 939 for 126.00 shipped then pick 1 of 8 pages of sckt 939 mobos under 74.00...A 3200+ at stock will beat a 805D stock in most all current games...OC them and AMD will still win...


If I was buying a computer for my uses I would want dual core and thus 805D has no equal in price point....

Truly hypothetical cause I dont need a budget cpu or want the hassle of a power hog heat producer...IMO too many negatives for me to want to deal with the only positive being price....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: stevty2889

Originally posted by: Absolute0

Originally posted by: stevty2889
And if you click on the link on the first page of this thread, and look at the benchmarks, the FX-60 at stock speeds, which is 2.6ghz is evenly matched with the 4.1ghz 805 in almost every test.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/page29.html
PD@4.1 vs. stock FX60

Fear 1 PD@4.0 wins
Fear 2 PD@4.1 wins
Fear 3 PD@4.1 wins
Quake 3 PD@4.1 wins
Quake 4 PD@4.1 wins
Autodesk FX60 wins
Clone CD FX60 wins
Divx PD@4.1 wins
Mainconcept MPEG Tie
Pinnacle Studio 10 PD@4.1 wins
WME 9 PD@4.1 wins
Xvid 1.0 PD@4.1 wins
Lame MP3 FX60 wins
OGG PD@4.1 wins
AVG FX60 wins
ABBYY Finereader PD@4.1 wins
Adobe Photoshop PD@4.1 wins
Finereader + AVG FX60 wins
Winrar 3.51 PD@4.1 wins
Winrar + lame PD@4.1 wins
Winrar + lame + ogg + wmv PD@4.1 wins
3dmark05 PD@4.1 wins
3dmark05 CPU FX60 wins
PCmark05 PD@4.1 wins
PCmark05 memory PD@4.1 wins
Sandra MIPS PD@4.1 wins
Sandra Whetstone MIPS FX60 wins
Sandra Multimedia FX60 wins
Sandra Multimedia floating point PD@4.1 wins
Sandra Memory bandwidth FX60 wins
Sandra Memory floating point FX60 wins

Total wins
805D @ 4.1 Ghz: 20
FX60: 10

I can't help but think you're slightly biased against the Intel.

Yes, but look at how close they actualy are, there are no significant wins for either. And if you haven't noticed, I have 4 Intel systems, and 1 AMD system...and I definatly could care less for the synthetics, I don't sit here and run those all day, but I do do encoding, and my X2 system beats all of my Intel systems plain and simple, and even if I spent another $100 for a better power supply, and got an improved $250 water cooling system, it would still only keep up with my X2, but end up costing more in the end.

Dont try to interject any commonsense!!! it goes right over their heads...

Calling you biased!!! LMFAO!!!!!! clueless....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Absolute0

Originally posted by: stevty2889
And if you click on the link on the first page of this thread, and look at the benchmarks, the FX-60 at stock speeds, which is 2.6ghz is evenly matched with the 4.1ghz 805 in almost every test.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/page29.html
PD@4.1 vs. stock FX60

Fear 1 PD@4.0 wins
Fear 2 PD@4.1 wins
Fear 3 PD@4.1 wins
Quake 3 PD@4.1 wins
Quake 4 PD@4.1 wins
Autodesk FX60 wins
Clone CD FX60 wins
Divx PD@4.1 wins
Mainconcept MPEG Tie
Pinnacle Studio 10 PD@4.1 wins
WME 9 PD@4.1 wins
Xvid 1.0 PD@4.1 wins
Lame MP3 FX60 wins
OGG PD@4.1 wins
AVG FX60 wins
ABBYY Finereader PD@4.1 wins
Adobe Photoshop PD@4.1 wins
Finereader + AVG FX60 wins
Winrar 3.51 PD@4.1 wins
Winrar + lame PD@4.1 wins
Winrar + lame + ogg + wmv PD@4.1 wins
3dmark05 PD@4.1 wins
3dmark05 CPU FX60 wins
PCmark05 PD@4.1 wins
PCmark05 memory PD@4.1 wins
Sandra MIPS PD@4.1 wins
Sandra Whetstone MIPS FX60 wins
Sandra Multimedia FX60 wins
Sandra Multimedia floating point PD@4.1 wins
Sandra Memory bandwidth FX60 wins
Sandra Memory floating point FX60 wins

Total wins
805D @ 4.1 Ghz: 20
FX60: 10

I can't help but think you're slightly biased against the Intel. I know that you have the 805D and 165 and that, overclocking considered, a 165 is a better buy, but for 130$ it's just hard to justify the hatin' lol. Last i checked, 130$ buys you a 3000+ A64.

wrong!!! 126.00 shipped buys a 3200+ 90nm sckt 939 now!!!


Also you are comparing a oc'd system to a non oc'd system....An opteron 170 oc'd to 2.6ghz may have 520ddr and the added ram performance can help in certain apps...

I know it does in the most popular program of superpi...

I actually know for testing it helps out in all games, winrar, most of the synthetic crap posted, etc....the results could easily swing....

nice try at a fair comparison....

So 4.1ghz oc'd 805D is "slightly better" then a STOCK 2.6ghz X2......An X2 or opteron oc'd to 2.6ghz may be another answer...

 

[Absolute0]

Yes Duvie, i'm clueless, without the wisdom of your 15K posts i couldn't even think on my own. Can you go an hour without making a bleedingly arrogant post?

I don't think it's too "clueless" of me to say that one when contender wins twice as often as the other contender, that it isn't "evenly matched." There were no other factors to it, that's what i was comparing, PD@4.1 vs. FX60.

You admit that at the 200$ price point you're left to choose between a 3200+ Venice and mobo vs. an 805D and mobo. Yeah for gamers the venice is still the better choice, but for some people the dual core has enough benefits to outweigh that. And in fact not everyone games. I'm not trying to claim the 805D is a performance monster because it is NOT and i agree that the design is flawed, but i think you guys are really stingy about giving the chip the recognition it has won as a super cheapo dual core.



Duvie, i didn't say the comparison was fair, i said it was a 4.1 PD vs. an FX60. That's all the rules there are to it. Take a second to read instead of your power triple posting.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Absolute0
Yes Duvie, i'm clueless, without the wisdom of your 15K posts i couldn't even think on my own. Can you go an hour without making a bleedingly arrogant post?

I don't think it's too "clueless" of me to say that one when contender wins twice as often as the other contender, that it isn't "evenly matched." There were no other factors to it, that's what i was comparing, PD@4.1 vs. FX60.

You admit that at the 200$ price point you're left to choose between a 3200+ Venice and mobo vs. an 805D and mobo. Yeah for gamers the venice is still the better choice, but for some people the dual core has enough benefits to outweigh that. And in fact not everyone games. I'm not trying to claim the 805D is a performance monster because it is NOT and i agree that the design is flawed, but i think you guys are really stingy about giving the chip the recognition it has won as a super cheapo dual core.

NO....You are clueless for calling Stevty biased....

You may be clueless (which I was not making reference to by the way) since you are comparing numbers of an oc'd system to a non oc'd system....Obviously an oc'd system gains in other areas...especially considering Intels which will thrive with a higher FSB and ram speed...AMD will also benefit (albeit not as much) with a raised memory speed...

So by the way who has spentg 200 dollars ona cpu stock 805D and mobo and hit 4.1ghz??? no one??? Then why are we even discussing this???

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Absolute0
Alright, screw synthetics, we're here using the computer in windows most of the time and i can't tell 2 Ghz from 3.15 Ghz on my 170. So why should i feel the difference between 2 Ghz and the 805D? The only place it's going to make a difference is benchmarks, and games, which are 70% GPU bound anyway. So for some people, a 200$ CPU/mobo combo that runs the 2.66 @ 3.0 Ghz stock cooler is worth it. Based on that exact price bracket, their other choices are Sempron, socket 754, or a 3000+ with a mobo, possibly a 3200+ with a really cheap mobo. Do you see what i'm getting at?


I pose a question, given 200$ for the CPU/mobo combination, what do you buy?



My point isn't that the 805D outperforms anything, it's that it has a certain niche at a certain price point where IT IS A GOOD BUY.

I couldn;t get my 805 to run@3 ghz without leaving the side cover off, and then with cool ambient temps, it was 65c. It would SHUT DOWN at 70c. So you might was well add $50 for a good hsf to do anything. And even at stock, you better have a good PSU, or it won't run stable.

 

[Absolute0]

I didn't say a 200$ 805D combo hits 4.1 Ghz. I honestly don't think you're reading a word i'm saying. We're discussing this since you started triple posting crap without reading.

Mark, 50$ is a rather arbitrary number for better cooling. I'll bet i could get 10c better temps than you on the stock cooling. I would lap the IHS, lap the heatsink and Arctic ceramique it. Definitely not a meanstream thing, but i do this to my AMDs so i'd do it to an Intel.


This is from Charlie at XS
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1421370&postcount=1
Board clocked to 3.48, not too bad.

 

[MAXIMISE]

Hi, new to the forum, just purchased a 805 with the hope that I can overclock (if only cautiously minor boosts), but was wondering if DDR2-533 was the base (with no OC headroom) or can I get some extra speed through just the 4300 ram. Anything would be great if I could stay with the DDR2-533. It seemed to me like I MUST have at least DDR2-667 to get anywhere?

Thanks for any help for the noob. (I am just reading the many pages of the THW guide at the moment.)
Its going into the P5WD2-E, with 2Gig DDR2-533

Max

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: MAXIMISE
Hi, new to the forum, just purchased a 805 with the hope that I can overclock (if only cautiously minor boosts), but was wondering if DDR2-533 was the base (with no OC headroom) or can I get some extra speed through just the 4300 ram. Anything would be great if I could stay with the DDR2-533. It seemed to me like I MUST have at least DDR2-667 to get anywhere?

Thanks for any help for the noob. (I am just reading the many pages of the THW guide at the moment.)
Its going into the P5WD2-E, with 2Gig DDR2-533

Max

You should have a 400mhz ram divider, so that you don't have to OC the ram, just make sure you have really good cooling and a fairly powerful PSU.

EDIT: Also I definatly don't recomend using a voltage as high as Toms Hardware did, I wouldn't go higher that 1.55v on a prescott based core(and smithfield IS prescott based) period.