0 Comments
| AMD Opteron 170 vs Athlon 64 X2 4400+ |
Released August, 2005
AMD Opteron 170
- 2 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the AMD Opteron 170
![]() | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB | ![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core |
VS
First seen on January, 2013
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
- 2.3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Athlon 64 X2 4400+
![]() | Higher clock speed 2.3 GHz | ![]() | Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W |
![]() | Much lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year | ![]() | Much lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Significantly more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 1 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| |||||||
Higher clock speed | 2.3 GHz | vs | 2 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
Much lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 89.38W | More than 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
Much lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 26.5 $/year | More than 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 96.36 $/year | More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.13 GHz | vs | 2 GHz | More than 55% better overclocked clock speed (Water) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Opteron 170 vs Athlon 64 X2 4400+
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Opteron 170
1,922
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
1,629
GeekBench
Opteron 170
1,922
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
2,808
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Opteron 170
1,097
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
1,145
PassMark (Single Core)
Opteron 170
620
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Opteron 170 | vs | Athlon 64 X2 4400+ |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.3 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
939 | |||
AM2 | |||
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
SSE2 | |||
MMX | |||
SSE3 | |||
SSE | |||
3DNow! | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes |
details | Opteron 170 | vs | Athlon 64 X2 4400+ |
---|---|---|---|
Threads | 2 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 90 nm | 90 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 2.91 GHz | 2.75 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2 GHz | 3.13 GHz | |
PassMark (Overclocked) | 1,282.6 | 1,605.4 | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.91 GHz | 2.75 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 110W | 65W | |
Annual home energy cost | 26.5 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 96.36 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 0.52 pt/W | 0.89 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 89.38W | 52.81W |
AMD Opteron 170 ![]() | AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
E6300 vs 4400+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
250 vs 4400+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$69 | ||
640 vs 4400+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$74 | ||
820 vs 4400+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | ||
E8400 vs 4400+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
550 vs 4400+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$200 | ||
965 vs 4400+ | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$300 | $305 | |
2500 vs W3520 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | $272 | |
6700K vs 4790K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6410 vs 4200U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$161 | $275 | |
N3540 vs 4005U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$225 | $134 | |
3217U vs 847 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
5200 vs 3470 | ||