PDA

View Full Version : AMD 64 3000 939


Alex
October 8th 04, 07:45 PM
Hey group.

I have come across a site selling 939 pin 64 3000 and 3200. I have contacted
the site as i didnt know they were avaliable and as i want a new MB, and
want a 939 socket one it looks like a good value option. They have confirmed
them.
Anyone know any details on the chips - as the AMD site doesnt list them.

Cheers -
Alex

PS...site is www.lowestonweb.com

Dee
October 8th 04, 07:53 PM
Alex wrote:
> Hey group.
>
> I have come across a site selling 939 pin 64 3000 and 3200. I have contacted
> the site as i didnt know they were avaliable and as i want a new MB, and
> want a 939 socket one it looks like a good value option. They have confirmed
> them.
> Anyone know any details on the chips - as the AMD site doesnt list them.
>
> Cheers -
> Alex
>
> PS...site is www.lowestonweb.com
>
>
The 939 pin Athlon 64 3000+ and 3200+ are the new 90nm CPUs that just
came available this month. If you want to read one review, here's the
URL for AMD Zone's review:


http://www.amdzone.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=63&page=1

General Schvantzkoph
October 8th 04, 10:30 PM
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:53:51 -0400, Dee wrote:

> Alex wrote:
>> Hey group.
>>
>> I have come across a site selling 939 pin 64 3000 and 3200. I have contacted
>> the site as i didnt know they were avaliable and as i want a new MB, and
>> want a 939 socket one it looks like a good value option. They have confirmed
>> them.
>> Anyone know any details on the chips - as the AMD site doesnt list them.
>>
>> Cheers -
>> Alex
>>
>> PS...site is www.lowestonweb.com
>>
>>
> The 939 pin Athlon 64 3000+ and 3200+ are the new 90nm CPUs that just
> came available this month. If you want to read one review, here's the
> URL for AMD Zone's review:
>
>
> http://www.amdzone.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=63&page=1

There is a pretty small price difference between the 3000+ and the 3200+
so you might as well get the 3200+. Also wait 2 weeks, AMD has a price cut
coming next week. As for motherboards, the review sites like the MSI
K8N NEO2 Platinum.

born_yesterday
October 9th 04, 09:17 AM
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:45:24 +0100, "Alex" > wrote:

>Hey group.
>
>I have come across a site selling 939 pin 64 3000 and 3200. I have contacted
>the site as i didnt know they were avaliable and as i want a new MB, and
>want a 939 socket one it looks like a good value option. They have confirmed
>them.
>Anyone know any details on the chips - as the AMD site doesnt list them.
>
>Cheers -
>Alex
>
>PS...site is www.lowestonweb.com
>

Is it still the popular opinion that socket 939 is magical and
desirable over the pathetic and diseased socket 754 ?

LOL.

JS
October 9th 04, 01:12 PM
"Alex" > wrote in
:

> Hey group.
>
> I have come across a site selling 939 pin 64 3000 and 3200. I have
> contacted the site as i didnt know they were avaliable and as i want a
> new MB, and want a 939 socket one it looks like a good value option.
> They have confirmed them.
> Anyone know any details on the chips - as the AMD site doesnt list
> them.


Try:

http://www.amd.com/us-
en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E10248,00.html

Cuzman
October 9th 04, 04:04 PM
<born_yesterday> wrote in message
...

" Is it still the popular opinion that socket 939 is magical and desirable
over the pathetic and diseased socket 754? "


That looks to be very much the case. Socket 939 currently offers a longer
CPU roadmap and dual-channel performance. The 939 3000+ will shed the 'too
expensive' tag, and the near future will bring Nforce4, PCI-E, SLI and
DDR-II.

Socket 754 may not get Nforce4, PCI-E, SLI and DDR-II. If AMD want it as
the main Sempron platform (as previously predicted), they will pressure
their partners and run their marketing strategy to keep socket 939 ahead.

Wes Newell
October 9th 04, 08:07 PM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:04:57 +0100, Cuzman wrote:

> <born_yesterday> wrote in message
> ...
>
> " Is it still the popular opinion that socket 939 is magical and
> desirable over the pathetic and diseased socket 754? "
>
>
> That looks to be very much the case. Socket 939 currently offers a
> longer CPU roadmap and dual-channel performance. The 939 3000+ will
> shed the 'too expensive' tag, and the near future will bring Nforce4,
> PCI-E, SLI and DDR-II.
>
> Socket 754 may not get Nforce4, PCI-E, SLI and DDR-II. If AMD want it
> as the main Sempron platform (as previously predicted), they will
> pressure their partners and run their marketing strategy to keep socket
> 939 ahead.

I think what he was trying to point out is that the A64 3000+ on a socket
754 board beats the A64 3000+ 939 in every test by a good margin (except
memory benchmarks). So 939 doesn't really offer anything in performance
boost over the pathetic 754 as he would put it.:-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Dee
October 9th 04, 11:45 PM
born_yesterday wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:45:24 +0100, "Alex" > wrote:
>
>
>>Hey group.
>>
>>I have come across a site selling 939 pin 64 3000 and 3200. I have contacted
>>the site as i didnt know they were avaliable and as i want a new MB, and
>>want a 939 socket one it looks like a good value option. They have confirmed
>>them.
>>Anyone know any details on the chips - as the AMD site doesnt list them.
>>
>>Cheers -
>>Alex
>>
>>PS...site is www.lowestonweb.com
>>
>
>
> Is it still the popular opinion that socket 939 is magical and
> desirable over the pathetic and diseased socket 754 ?
>
> LOL.
>
>
Based on you asinine response, you must have been the afterbirth that
came out of your mother's anus, which wasn't even the right path!!

Lachoneus
October 10th 04, 05:02 AM
> I think what he was trying to point out is that the A64 3000+ on a socket
> 754 board beats the A64 3000+ 939 in every test by a good margin (except
> memory benchmarks). So 939 doesn't really offer anything in performance
> boost over the pathetic 754 as he would put it.:-)

Probably because the S754 3000+ runs at 2.0GHz, while the S939 3000+
runs at 1.8GHz. I'll bet a S754 3000+ would match a S939 3200+ in
single channel mode and be slightly outperformed by it in dual channel
mode (but probably not by a large enough factor to get excited about).

Still, if I were building an A64 box in the near future, I'd probably go
with a S939 since it has a better upgrade path.

JK
October 10th 04, 05:32 AM
Lachoneus wrote:

> > I think what he was trying to point out is that the A64 3000+ on a socket
> > 754 board beats the A64 3000+ 939 in every test by a good margin (except
> > memory benchmarks). So 939 doesn't really offer anything in performance
> > boost over the pathetic 754 as he would put it.:-)
>
> Probably because the S754 3000+ runs at 2.0GHz, while the S939 3000+
> runs at 1.8GHz. I'll bet a S754 3000+ would match a S939 3200+ in
> single channel mode and be slightly outperformed by it in dual channel
> mode (but probably not by a large enough factor to get excited about).
>
> Still, if I were building an A64 box in the near future, I'd probably go
> with a S939 since it has a better upgrade path.

I would choose the socket 754 one, since the socket 939 one is around $50
more, and a socket 939 motherboard is around $30 more than a socket
754 one. The $80 saved would probably pay for a new motherboard when
you are ready to upgrade the cpu, and motherboards available then will
probably be much better performing than those available now.

Allan Wind
October 10th 04, 08:08 AM
On 2004-10-10, Lachoneus > wrote:
> Still, if I were building an A64 box in the near future, I'd probably go
> with a S939 since it has a better upgrade path.

Modular components is a pretty hollow proposition upgrade wise; it all
changes if you give it enough time. isa/mca/pci/pci-x/pcie/agp,
edo/sdram/ddr, ide/scsi/sas/sata, slota/370/478/604/939/940.

Unless you have short-term upgrade plans, just buy what fit today.


/Allan

Alan Walpool
October 10th 04, 02:02 PM
>>>>> "Allan" == Allan Wind > writes:

Allan> On 2004-10-10, Lachoneus >
Allan> wrote:
>> Still, if I were building an A64 box in the near future, I'd
>> probably go with a S939 since it has a better upgrade path.

Allan> Modular components is a pretty hollow proposition upgrade
Allan> wise; it all changes if you give it enough time.
Allan> isa/mca/pci/pci-x/pcie/agp, edo/sdram/ddr, ide/scsi/sas/sata,
Allan> slota/370/478/604/939/940.

Allan> Unless you have short-term upgrade plans, just buy what fit
Allan> today.

Very true, and well said. Upgrading a harddisk, or memory is usually
the standard. Once you upgrade cpu's you will probably want the latest
and best motherboard.

Later

Alan

Steve
October 10th 04, 09:31 PM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 01:17:43 -0700, born_yesterday wrote:


>
>Is it still the popular opinion that socket 939 is magical and
>desirable over the pathetic and diseased socket 754 ?
>
>LOL.
>

LOL indeed. Looks like Blue Crystals are at work here regarding the
939.

Myself, I'm waiting for the price drop on Oct 15th and plan to buy an
Athlon 64 3400+ 2.4ghz 512k L2 S754 Retail processor for $238 and the
DFI LanParty S754 motherboard for around $138. I will also save money
as I will only need a single stick of memory.

Steve

Dee
October 10th 04, 11:32 PM
Alex wrote:
> Hey group.
>
> I have come across a site selling 939 pin 64 3000 and 3200. I have contacted
> the site as i didnt know they were avaliable and as i want a new MB, and
> want a 939 socket one it looks like a good value option. They have confirmed
> them.
> Anyone know any details on the chips - as the AMD site doesnt list them.
>
> Cheers -
> Alex
>
> PS...site is www.lowestonweb.com
>
>
It's unfortunate so many of the response to get are from total asses.
Regardless of some of the benchmark reports, socket 939 is the most
up-to-date AMD configuration. Even if the s754 3000 beats the s939 3000
in current benchmarks, the undeniable fact is that there is more future
expansion capability with a s939 MB than with a s754 MB. AMD will phase
out the s754 Athlon 64 and leave the s754 for the Sempron as the low end
MB. The Athlon 64 future currently is in the s939 MBs regardless of
what others may tell you about how good the s754 is!

These forums really prove that opinions are just like assholes -
everyone has one! You have to wade through the ****, unfortunately, and
decide what is best for you!

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24659.PDF

Check the above document for some information about the Athlon 64
processors, both 754 and 939 pin.

Dee
October 10th 04, 11:37 PM
Alex wrote:

> Hey group.
>
> I have come across a site selling 939 pin 64 3000 and 3200. I have contacted
> the site as i didnt know they were avaliable and as i want a new MB, and
> want a 939 socket one it looks like a good value option. They have confirmed
> them.
> Anyone know any details on the chips - as the AMD site doesnt list them.
>
> Cheers -
> Alex
>
> PS...site is www.lowestonweb.com
>
>
It's unfortunate so many of the responses you get are from total asses.
Regardless of some of the benchmark reports, socket 939 is the most
up-to-date AMD configuration. Even if the s754 3000 beats the s939 3000
in current benchmarks, the undeniable fact is that there is more future
expansion capability with a s939 MB than with a s754 MB. AMD will phase
out the s754 Athlon 64 and leave the s754 for the Sempron as the low end
MB. The Athlon 64 future currently is in the s939 MBs regardless of
what others may tell you about how good the s754 is! Personally, I
would wait until the next editions are out that support PCI Express,
which are due out later this month!

These forums really prove that opinions are just like assholes -
everyone has one! You have to wade through the ****, unfortunately, and
decide what is best for you!

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24659.PDF

Check the above document for some information about the Athlon 64
processors, both 754 and 939 pin.

Ed Light
October 11th 04, 12:36 AM
>>Is it still the popular opinion that socket 939 is magical and
>>desirable over the pathetic and diseased socket 754 ?

Popular or not, you have described the view held exclusively by the
cognoscenti.

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Wes Newell
October 11th 04, 09:00 AM
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:37:17 -0400, Dee wrote:

> It's unfortunate so many of the responses you get are from total asses.

It's also unfortunate that you double posted your reply. Maybe one should
know the difference between an ass and a hole in the ground before calling
others an ass.

> Regardless of some of the benchmark reports, socket 939 is the most
> up-to-date AMD configuration.

I don't think anyone disputed this.

> Even if the s754 3000 beats the s939 3000 in current benchmarks, the
> undeniable fact is that there is more future expansion capability with a
> s939 MB than with a s754 MB.

And no one disputed this either.

> AMD will phase out the s754 Athlon 64 and leave the s754 for the Sempron
> as the low end MB.

In your dreams maybe. As long as they can sell 754 A64's, they will sell
them. And forget upgrading cost. It will be cheaper to get a 754MB and
3000+ now and upgrade to a new 939MB and cpu in a year than it would be to
buy 939 MB and 3000+ cpu now and then in a year just upgrade the cpu. So
you get a machine that's faster now for less money and cheaper to upgrade
a year from now. You must work for the government.:-)

> The Athlon 64 future currently is in the s939 MBs regardless of what
> others may tell you about how good the s754 is! Personally, I would
> wait until the next editions are out that support PCI Express, which are
> due out later this month!
>
The future is uncertain, so unless you've traveled back from there, you're
talking out of what you call the other people. For now, 754 is by far the
best buy.

> These forums really prove that opinions are just like assholes -
> everyone has one! You have to wade through the ****, unfortunately, and
> decide what is best for you!
>
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24659.PDF
>
> Check the above document for some information about the Athlon 64
> processors, both 754 and 939 pin.

And just like assholes, 2 memory channels doesn't mean the **** moves
faster.:-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

John Hollingsworth
October 11th 04, 11:33 AM
>
> And just like assholes, 2 memory channels doesn't mean the **** moves
> faster.:-)
>
2 assholes does though ;-)

John

Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.

Dee
October 11th 04, 12:33 PM
Wes Newell wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:37:17 -0400, Dee wrote:
>
>
>>AMD will phase out the s754 Athlon 64 and leave the s754 for the Sempron
>>as the low end MB.
>
>
> In your dreams maybe. As long as they can sell 754 A64's, they will sell
> them. And forget upgrading cost. It will be cheaper to get a 754MB and
> 3000+ now and upgrade to a new 939MB and cpu in a year than it would be to
> buy 939 MB and 3000+ cpu now and then in a year just upgrade the cpu. So
> you get a machine that's faster now for less money and cheaper to upgrade
> a year from now. You must work for the government.:-)
>
>
>>The Athlon 64 future currently is in the s939 MBs regardless of what
>>others may tell you about how good the s754 is! Personally, I would
>>wait until the next editions are out that support PCI Express, which are
>>due out later this month!
>>
>
> The future is uncertain, so unless you've traveled back from there, you're
> talking out of what you call the other people. For now, 754 is by far the
> best buy.
>
>
So, you know more than anyone else in the world?

I guess you think the information at the following URLs are B.S.?:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2233

This is the main article:

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00672/

Alan Walpool
October 11th 04, 03:01 PM
>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Newell > writes:

Wes> In your dreams maybe. As long as they can sell 754 A64's, they
Wes> will sell them. And forget upgrading cost. It will be cheaper to
Wes> get a 754MB and 3000+ now and upgrade to a new 939MB and cpu in
Wes> a year than it would be to buy 939 MB and 3000+ cpu now and then
Wes> in a year just upgrade the cpu. So you get a machine that's
Wes> faster now for less money and cheaper to upgrade a year from
Wes> now. You must work for the government.:-)

<Off topic>
Wait a minute here, but you have the same problems in the private
sector you have in government. My brother works for an oil company,
and his exact quote is "If oil did not have a monopoly the oil company
would be out of business". Whatever, remember some government workers
are good folks, and smart, and some are not. Just like any other
place or business.

Whatever
<End rant>

I would concur it is cheaper to get a 754 setup and then just upgrade
the whole damn thing when 939 prices drop, unless you have the cash to
burn ;-)).

PCI express is the next best thing, and what is coming next. One thing
for sure it will be pricey whenever it comes out.

Later,

Alan

Wes Newell
October 11th 04, 06:14 PM
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:33:09 -0400, Dee wrote:

> Wes Newell wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:37:17 -0400, Dee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AMD will phase out the s754 Athlon 64 and leave the s754 for the Sempron
>>>as the low end MB.
>>
>>
>> In your dreams maybe. As long as they can sell 754 A64's, they will sell
>> them. And forget upgrading cost. It will be cheaper to get a 754MB and
>> 3000+ now and upgrade to a new 939MB and cpu in a year than it would be to
>> buy 939 MB and 3000+ cpu now and then in a year just upgrade the cpu. So
>> you get a machine that's faster now for less money and cheaper to upgrade
>> a year from now. You must work for the government.:-)
>>
>>
>>>The Athlon 64 future currently is in the s939 MBs regardless of what
>>>others may tell you about how good the s754 is! Personally, I would
>>>wait until the next editions are out that support PCI Express, which are
>>>due out later this month!
>>>
>>
>> The future is uncertain, so unless you've traveled back from there, you're
>> talking out of what you call the other people. For now, 754 is by far the
>> best buy.
>>
>>
> So, you know more than anyone else in the world?
>
Depends on the subject. General knowledge, more than about 90%. Technical,
more than 99%.

> I guess you think the information at the following URLs are B.S.?:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2233
>
> This is the main article:
>
> http://www.overclockers.com/tips00672/

I didn't really find anything of interest at either of these except the
roadmap, so what's your point. The 754 3700+ is out, at the same clock
speed as the 939 3800+ and 4000+(which isn't). Surely your point isn't
that the 3700+ is the fastest scheduled CPU for 754, a fact that's been
known for months.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

General Schvantzkoph
October 11th 04, 07:21 PM
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:14:19 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:33:09 -0400, Dee wrote:
>
>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:37:17 -0400, Dee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>AMD will phase out the s754 Athlon 64 and leave the s754 for the Sempron
>>>>as the low end MB.
>>>
>>>
>>> In your dreams maybe. As long as they can sell 754 A64's, they will sell
>>> them. And forget upgrading cost. It will be cheaper to get a 754MB and
>>> 3000+ now and upgrade to a new 939MB and cpu in a year than it would be to
>>> buy 939 MB and 3000+ cpu now and then in a year just upgrade the cpu. So
>>> you get a machine that's faster now for less money and cheaper to upgrade
>>> a year from now. You must work for the government.:-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Athlon 64 future currently is in the s939 MBs regardless of what
>>>>others may tell you about how good the s754 is! Personally, I would
>>>>wait until the next editions are out that support PCI Express, which are
>>>>due out later this month!
>>>>
>>>
>>> The future is uncertain, so unless you've traveled back from there, you're
>>> talking out of what you call the other people. For now, 754 is by far the
>>> best buy.
>>>
>>>
>> So, you know more than anyone else in the world?
>>
> Depends on the subject. General knowledge, more than about 90%. Technical,
> more than 99%.
>
>> I guess you think the information at the following URLs are B.S.?:
>>
>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2233
>>
>> This is the main article:
>>
>> http://www.overclockers.com/tips00672/
>
> I didn't really find anything of interest at either of these except the
> roadmap, so what's your point. The 754 3700+ is out, at the same clock
> speed as the 939 3800+ and 4000+(which isn't). Surely your point isn't
> that the 3700+ is the fastest scheduled CPU for 754, a fact that's been
> known for months.

The big advantage of the 939 package vs the 754 is that the 939 supports
twice as much memory. The 754 can only handle two PC 3200 DIMMS, the 939
can handle four. If you are willing to drop down to PC 2700 then the 754
will handle upto three DIMMS which is still less than the the 939s four.
The cores are identical, the differences are in the memory systems. The
754s have 1M of cache and one memory channel, while the 939s (in their
affordable incarnations) have only 1/2M of cache but two memory channels.
The performance at any particular clock speed is pretty much a wash with
the 754s bigger cache making up for it's lower memory bandwidth. The 939s
do offer an attractive upgrade path that won't be available for 754 pin
parts, namely the dual core parts that will be available next year. The
good performance of the 754s with only a single memory channel is proof
that the dual memory channels on the 939s are sufficient to support two
cores without having to upgrade the DIMMs. Normally CPU upgrades don't
make a lot of sense because by the time a processor has doubled in speed
(the minimum amount for the upgrade to be noticeable) the whole system is
old enough that it makes more sense to replace the entire system rather
than the CPU. The dual core upgrade path is unique in that it will be
available in a relatively short time, probably less than a year. It will
offer a true 2X workload improvement. It won't accelerate individual
applications much unless they are multithreaded, although it will
accelerate even signel threaded applications some because OS tasks such as
file system accesses will be overlapped, but for those apps that are
multithreaded will see a real 2X improvement.

October 13th 04, 03:37 AM
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:21:35 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
> wrote:


>
>The big advantage of the 939 package vs the 754 is that the 939 supports
>twice as much memory. The 754 can only handle two PC 3200 DIMMS, the 939
>can handle four. If you are willing to drop down to PC 2700 then the 754
>will handle upto three DIMMS which is still less than the the 939s four.
>The cores are identical, the differences are in the memory systems. The
>754s have 1M of cache and one memory channel, while the 939s (in their
>affordable incarnations) have only 1/2M of cache but two memory channels.
>The performance at any particular clock speed is pretty much a wash with
>the 754s bigger cache making up for it's lower memory bandwidth. The 939s
>do offer an attractive upgrade path that won't be available for 754 pin
>parts, namely the dual core parts that will be available next year. The
>good performance of the 754s with only a single memory channel is proof
>that the dual memory channels on the 939s are sufficient to support two
>cores without having to upgrade the DIMMs. Normally CPU upgrades don't
>make a lot of sense because by the time a processor has doubled in speed
>(the minimum amount for the upgrade to be noticeable) the whole system is
>old enough that it makes more sense to replace the entire system rather
>than the CPU. The dual core upgrade path is unique in that it will be
>available in a relatively short time, probably less than a year. It will
>offer a true 2X workload improvement. It won't accelerate individual
>applications much unless they are multithreaded, although it will
>accelerate even signel threaded applications some because OS tasks such as
>file system accesses will be overlapped, but for those apps that are
>multithreaded will see a real 2X improvement.


Although dual core cpu's sound interesting, I doubt a full 2X
improvement will be realized. All these doubling schemes in the past
have always had grand claims, and much lower performance in actuality.
It has always seemed to me that a faster single processor beats out
slower dual processor rigs. Of course, Intel has hit the wall on
faster P4 processors, so...

I think at this point in time, socket 754 is a reasonable purchase as
it may still turn out to be the dominant player in the current market.
At worst, you'll probably be into newer motherboard chipsets with
gotta have features long before socket 754 is too slow to be of use.

Socket 939 just seems to be too little extra for too much more.

What I find disturbing is people seem to bite on the bare hook these
days instead of having an opinion that doesn't come straight from the
propaganda machines. When I was growing up, people still used to use
"tuna" as a slur. I guess that's dropped out of the popular culture
these days.

General Schvantzkoph
October 13th 04, 01:23 PM
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:37:29 -0700, sorry_charlie wrote:

There is absolutely no reason not to go with the 939 package, the costs
are similiar to the 754 and it supports twice as much memory. More
importantly there are only two DIMMs on a memory channel with the 939 vs
three for the 754 so it will be more reliable. Even if you never upgrade
the CPU, and most people probably won't, you will want to add memory at
some point, everyone does that.

Alan Walpool
October 13th 04, 01:28 PM
>>>>> "sorry" == sorry charlie > writes:

sorry> Socket 939 just seems to be too little extra for too much
sorry> more.

More hype than actual performance improvement.

sorry> What I find disturbing is people seem to bite on the bare hook
sorry> these days instead of having an opinion that doesn't come
sorry> straight from the propaganda machines. When I was growing up,
sorry> people still used to use "tuna" as a slur. I guess that's
sorry> dropped out of the popular culture these days.

That happened in the old days also, and will continue. The propaganda
machines are better that is the only difference.

754 is fine for someone on a budget. If you have the cash 939 is the
way to go.

Whatever both will work fine 100% of all users.

Later,

Alan

Alan Walpool
October 13th 04, 01:36 PM
>>>>> "General" == General Schvantzkoph > writes:

General> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:37:29 -0700, sorry_charlie wrote:
General> There is absolutely no reason not to go with the 939
General> package, the costs are similiar to the 754 and it supports
General> twice as much memory. More importantly there are only two
General> DIMMs on a memory channel with the 939 vs three for the 754
General> so it will be more reliable. Even if you never upgrade the
General> CPU, and most people probably won't, you will want to add
General> memory at some point, everyone does that.

True 939 is the way to go if need more memory. However, no where have
I have read that 939 is more reliable than 754 systems. Could you
please give a reference that would be very interesting to read. 754
systems are as reliable as 939 systems. Your note about memory
upgrades in the future is a very valid point, and if you need more
than 2gig of pc3200 memory the only option is 939. Because you can use
the cheaper 512mb memory modules the 939 is still a better value if
you want 2gig of memory.

There is a good reason to go with 754 systems, 754 systems are
cheaper than 939 systems. I suspect the price difference will
decrease, and when that happens 754 will be history.

Later,

Alan

General Schvantzkoph
October 13th 04, 02:16 PM
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:36:22 -0500, Alan Walpool wrote:

>>>>>> "General" == General Schvantzkoph > writes:
>
> General> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:37:29 -0700, sorry_charlie wrote:
> General> There is absolutely no reason not to go with the 939
> General> package, the costs are similiar to the 754 and it supports
> General> twice as much memory. More importantly there are only two
> General> DIMMs on a memory channel with the 939 vs three for the 754
> General> so it will be more reliable. Even if you never upgrade the
> General> CPU, and most people probably won't, you will want to add
> General> memory at some point, everyone does that.
>
> True 939 is the way to go if need more memory. However, no where have
> I have read that 939 is more reliable than 754 systems. Could you
> please give a reference that would be very interesting to read. 754
> systems are as reliable as 939 systems. Your note about memory
> upgrades in the future is a very valid point, and if you need more
> than 2gig of pc3200 memory the only option is 939. Because you can use
> the cheaper 512mb memory modules the 939 is still a better value if
> you want 2gig of memory.
>
> There is a good reason to go with 754 systems, 754 systems are
> cheaper than 939 systems. I suspect the price difference will
> decrease, and when that happens 754 will be history.
>
> Later,
>
> Alan

I'm speaking as an engineer, a shorter less loaded bus is going to
perform more reliably then a longer bus with more stubs on it. The 754 pin
part only supports two DIMMs at 400MHz, if you want to put three DIMMs on
the bus you have to back the clock down to 333MHz. The 939 has two
separate memory buses, each with only two DIMMs on them. That means that
the buses are shorter which is very important for reducing reflections.
They also have only two stubs vs three on the single 754 bus. Stubs also
reduce signal quality. Because each bus has only two DIMMs you can run
them both at 400MHz for a total of four DIMMs running at 400Mhz vs three
at 333MHz. Even with only DIMMs plugged into the 754 bus the signal
quality will be worse because the wires are longer and there are three
connectors soldered to them vs two on the 939 pin board.

Alan Walpool
October 13th 04, 04:28 PM
>>>>> "General" == General Schvantzkoph > writes:

General> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:36:22 -0500, Alan Walpool wrote:
>>>>>>> "General" == General Schvantzkoph >
>>>>>>> writes:
>>
General> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:37:29 -0700, sorry_charlie wrote:
General> There is absolutely no reason not to go with the 939
General> package, the costs are similiar to the 754 and it supports
General> twice as much memory. More importantly there are only two
General> DIMMs on a memory channel with the 939 vs three for the 754
General> so it will be more reliable. Even if you never upgrade the
General> CPU, and most people probably won't, you will want to add
General> memory at some point, everyone does that.
>> True 939 is the way to go if need more memory. However, no where
>> have I have read that 939 is more reliable than 754 systems. Could
>> you please give a reference that would be very interesting to
>> read. 754 systems are as reliable as 939 systems. Your note about
>> memory upgrades in the future is a very valid point, and if you
>> need more than 2gig of pc3200 memory the only option is 939.
>> Because you can use the cheaper 512mb memory modules the 939 is
>> still a better value if you want 2gig of memory.
>>
>> There is a good reason to go with 754 systems, 754 systems are
>> cheaper than 939 systems. I suspect the price difference will
>> decrease, and when that happens 754 will be history.
>>
>> Later,
>>
>> Alan

General> I'm speaking as an engineer, a shorter less loaded bus is
General> going to perform more reliably then a longer bus with more
General> stubs on it. The 754 pin part only supports two DIMMs at
General> 400MHz, if you want to put three DIMMs on the bus you have
General> to back the clock down to 333MHz. The 939 has two separate
General> memory buses, each with only two DIMMs on them. That means
General> that the buses are shorter which is very important for
General> reducing reflections. They also have only two stubs vs three
General> on the single 754 bus. Stubs also reduce signal quality.
General> Because each bus has only two DIMMs you can run them both at
General> 400MHz for a total of four DIMMs running at 400Mhz vs three
General> at 333MHz. Even with only DIMMs plugged into the 754 bus the
General> signal quality will be worse because the wires are longer
General> and there are three connectors soldered to them vs two on
General> the 939 pin board.

Okay - I would assume that if one uses the system per specifications
then a 754 system would be just as reliable as the 939 system. I
concurred with you in my last message that 939 has the advantage for
when it comes to maximum amount of installed memory.

Good luck,

Alan

JK
October 13th 04, 05:15 PM
General Schvantzkoph wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:37:29 -0700, sorry_charlie wrote:
>
> There is absolutely no reason not to go with the 939 package, the costs
> are similiar to the 754

No they aren't. An Athlon 64 3000+ socket 754 is around $150, while the
socket 939 one is around $200. A socket 939 motherboard is also around
$30 more than a comparable socket 754 one.

> and it supports twice as much memory.

What?

>

> More
> importantly there are only two DIMMs on a memory channel with the 939 vs
> three for the 754 so it will be more reliable. Even if you never upgrade
> the CPU, and most people probably won't, you will want to add memory at
> some point, everyone does that.