which one is better? :S i was thinking about upping to a 4400x2 (for the 2MB L2 cache) once i get my loan thru for uni.. but later spotted the 165 opty which is the same cache wise, but lower clocked.. but from what i remember opty's overclock better?
for your ram / setup , 4400+ would be a better choice. Opterons overshadowed the X2 series but they are JUST as good if not better ( being higher binned ). Not to mention on your board , high HTT is difficult to achieve.
wait for 24th june . Amd is getting set for lowering prices after conroe's launch. You will get good prices. You will benefit from getting a 3800+ X2 as well. Its been proven over and over that other than SuperPi and other numberical benchies the extra cache really doesnt help. So you can easily get away with 2x512K cache and save urself some money especially since the newer 3800+ X2 are ocing soo nicely .
opterons have always been made from better silicon than AMD desktop chips. Its because stability is highly valued in the server market as is the power consumption. However , with the X2 being better than single core has a better silicon.
second that, infact a higher cache can even give you less performance from some aspects as in superpi, but its EXTREMLY small difference and is only seen through benchmark programs.
i started a thread some time ago named cpu cache with some numbers on superpi with different cache sizes.
i do alot of 3D work, rendering and such, which is multi threaded.. i know it's memory intensive, but will it use the cache? or am i really wasting cash on a 4400?