939 or 754 socket cpu???

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Which one is the best one?

I got this...
AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
and
ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd

I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
(almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
that as more feature?

For now i'm one a socket a, a 2600 xp and i would like to move to one
of these two. Also i've read that 3200xp compare to a 280064xp is
almost the same thing in terme of speed??? It's less expensive and it
would be maybe wiser for a gamer like me huhh huhh! ( i would
overclock it to a 3400 ) But again it's the socket that i can't figure
out...

:-L


I've base my compare with this little program : uamd.exe
uAMDtool
Universal AMD Tool v1.0
8 answers Last reply
More about socket
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    The 939 MB would prepare you for your upgrade to the FX chip when the prices
    come down.

    Marcus

    "DDC" <whatsnow@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:jm2rs096d5kqqpjip5fnqfmbceo2hqmccj@4ax.com...
    > Which one is the best one?
    >
    > I got this...
    > AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
    > and
    > ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
    >
    > I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
    > (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
    > that as more feature?
    >
    > For now i'm one a socket a, a 2600 xp and i would like to move to one
    > of these two. Also i've read that 3200xp compare to a 280064xp is
    > almost the same thing in terme of speed??? It's less expensive and it
    > would be maybe wiser for a gamer like me huhh huhh! ( i would
    > overclock it to a 3400 ) But again it's the socket that i can't figure
    > out...
    >
    > :-L
    >
    >
    >
    > I've base my compare with this little program : uamd.exe
    > uAMDtool
    > Universal AMD Tool v1.0
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    939, nothing else, this is the upcoming future.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    DDC wrote:
    > Which one is the best one?
    >
    > I got this...
    > AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
    > and
    > ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
    >
    > I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
    > (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
    > that as more feature?

    Both are fine cpus. Four A64 at around that speed grade exist:
    A64 3400+, 1MB, 2.2Ghz, s754 (130nm, clawhammer)
    A64 3400+, 512KB, 2.4Ghz, s754 (130nm, newcastle)
    A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (130nm, newcastle)
    A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (90nm, winchester)

    If you're going to get a socket 939 cpu, I would not recommend the older
    newcastle chip. Winchester is very slightly faster, runs quite a bit
    cooler (even the Newcastle is far easier to cool quietly than a P4
    prescott though) and is not really more expensive, so there is no point
    in getting the newcastle.
    The socket 939 cpu 3500+ rating is not really completely justified imho.
    There are quite a few cases where the 3400+ socket 754 cpu is faster
    (especially the 512KB 2.4Ghz version, which tends to be slightly faster
    than the 1MB 2.2Ghz version overall).
    However, socket 939 is clearly the more "future-proof" version. If
    you're going that route, I'd recommend a PCI-Express board to go along
    with it.

    Roland
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:56:17 +0100, Roland Scheidegger
    <rscheidegger@gmx.ch> wrote:

    >DDC wrote:
    >> Which one is the best one?
    >>
    >> I got this...
    >> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
    >> and
    >> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
    >>
    >> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
    >> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
    >> that as more feature?
    >
    >Both are fine cpus. Four A64 at around that speed grade exist:
    >A64 3400+, 1MB, 2.2Ghz, s754 (130nm, clawhammer)
    >A64 3400+, 512KB, 2.4Ghz, s754 (130nm, newcastle)
    >A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (130nm, newcastle)
    >A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (90nm, winchester)
    >
    >If you're going to get a socket 939 cpu, I would not recommend the older
    >newcastle chip. Winchester is very slightly faster, runs quite a bit
    >cooler (even the Newcastle is far easier to cool quietly than a P4
    >prescott though) and is not really more expensive, so there is no point
    >in getting the newcastle.
    >The socket 939 cpu 3500+ rating is not really completely justified imho.
    >There are quite a few cases where the 3400+ socket 754 cpu is faster
    >(especially the 512KB 2.4Ghz version, which tends to be slightly faster
    >than the 1MB 2.2Ghz version overall).
    >However, socket 939 is clearly the more "future-proof" version. If
    >you're going that route, I'd recommend a PCI-Express board to go along
    >with it.
    >
    >Roland


    Thankx for the reply.

    Yep pci-e is imo a must with it's sli technologie also that it new and
    that it not a common tech, so for now pci-e video card are cheap. Ie:
    the fx6600 gt 128mb. + used in pair it would be nice to posses this.
    But for now ($$$) i think i will stick with my 9800pro from ati, it
    has done a pretty good job in hl2 ut2204demo and need for speed
    underground.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:56:17 +0100, Roland Scheidegger
    <rscheidegger@gmx.ch> wrote:

    >DDC wrote:
    >> Which one is the best one?
    >>
    >> I got this...
    >> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
    >> and
    >> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
    >>
    >> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
    >> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
    >> that as more feature?
    >
    >Both are fine cpus. Four A64 at around that speed grade exist:
    >A64 3400+, 1MB, 2.2Ghz, s754 (130nm, clawhammer)
    >A64 3400+, 512KB, 2.4Ghz, s754 (130nm, newcastle)
    >A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (130nm, newcastle)
    >A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (90nm, winchester)
    >
    >If you're going to get a socket 939 cpu, I would not recommend the older
    >newcastle chip. Winchester is very slightly faster, runs quite a bit
    >cooler (even the Newcastle is far easier to cool quietly than a P4
    >prescott though) and is not really more expensive, so there is no point
    >in getting the newcastle.
    >The socket 939 cpu 3500+ rating is not really completely justified imho.
    >There are quite a few cases where the 3400+ socket 754 cpu is faster
    >(especially the 512KB 2.4Ghz version, which tends to be slightly faster
    >than the 1MB 2.2Ghz version overall).
    >However, socket 939 is clearly the more "future-proof" version. If
    >you're going that route, I'd recommend a PCI-Express board to go along
    >with it.
    >
    >Roland

    I wouldn't worry too much about future proof, they are doing all they
    can to make everything obsolete as soon as possible. but....

    I'd probably recommend a 939 and a PCI express also. Went through the
    obsolete video card thing with the old local bus video a long time ago
    and it's ugly when you can't get a video card for your board any more.

    However, if you go low ball, you can get a pretty good motherboard
    cheap and update it in the future.

    I think it depends on your finances, but personally I wouldn't want to
    buy a $170 motherboard any more.

    My current motherboard is an Aopen AK86-L socket 754 and it's going
    for $64 at new egg. It won't overclock, but it's well made and rock
    solid. Being 64bit, it'll run linux for a long long time after you've
    upgraded your main box.

    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-137-042&depa=0
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:21:14 -0800, gerry <gerry_m@spam_this.com> wrote:

    >On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:56:17 +0100, Roland Scheidegger
    ><rscheidegger@gmx.ch> wrote:
    >
    >>DDC wrote:
    >>> Which one is the best one?
    >>>
    >>> I got this...
    >>> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
    >>> and
    >>> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
    >>>
    >>> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
    >>> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
    >>> that as more feature?
    >>
    >>Both are fine cpus. Four A64 at around that speed grade exist:
    >>A64 3400+, 1MB, 2.2Ghz, s754 (130nm, clawhammer)
    >>A64 3400+, 512KB, 2.4Ghz, s754 (130nm, newcastle)
    >>A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (130nm, newcastle)
    >>A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (90nm, winchester)
    >>
    >>If you're going to get a socket 939 cpu, I would not recommend the older
    >>newcastle chip. Winchester is very slightly faster, runs quite a bit
    >>cooler (even the Newcastle is far easier to cool quietly than a P4
    >>prescott though) and is not really more expensive, so there is no point
    >>in getting the newcastle.
    >>The socket 939 cpu 3500+ rating is not really completely justified imho.
    >>There are quite a few cases where the 3400+ socket 754 cpu is faster
    >>(especially the 512KB 2.4Ghz version, which tends to be slightly faster
    >>than the 1MB 2.2Ghz version overall).
    >>However, socket 939 is clearly the more "future-proof" version. If
    >>you're going that route, I'd recommend a PCI-Express board to go along
    >>with it.
    >>
    >>Roland
    >
    >I wouldn't worry too much about future proof, they are doing all they
    >can to make everything obsolete as soon as possible. but....
    >
    >I'd probably recommend a 939 and a PCI express also. Went through the
    >obsolete video card thing with the old local bus video a long time ago
    >and it's ugly when you can't get a video card for your board any more.
    >
    >However, if you go low ball, you can get a pretty good motherboard
    >cheap and update it in the future.
    >
    >I think it depends on your finances, but personally I wouldn't want to
    >buy a $170 motherboard any more.
    >
    >My current motherboard is an Aopen AK86-L socket 754 and it's going
    >for $64 at new egg. It won't overclock, but it's well made and rock
    >solid. Being 64bit, it'll run linux for a long long time after you've
    >upgraded your main box.
    >
    >http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-137-042&depa=0
    >


    If I was building today I'd try a 90nm (939) 3000+ or a 3500+.

    ..09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242
    The 3500+ and the 3000+ (90nm) both topped out at about 2.6GHz with
    default or modestly increased CPU voltage and air cooling.

    Got a VNF3-250 here, stable up to 240MHz bus. $76 at newegg.
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-152-043&depa=0

    Happy Holidays,
    Ed
    --
    Chaintech VNF3-250 / BIOS 10-19-2004
    Athlon 64 3200+ (newcastle) / 2x512 Ballistix PC4000
    ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB / Creative Labs Audigy 2
    Seagate 160GB 8MB PATA100 / WD 120GB 8MB PATA100
    NEC 8x DVDRW 2500A / LiteOn 52x CDRW 5238S
    Windows XP Pro SP2 / Antec SX-1040BII(400W)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    The main difference of the two is Memory , 939 supports the dual
    channel DDR , but 754 only supports single channel.
    For K8's 800HTL , dual channel is the best choice , otherwise the
    memory will be the bottleneck .

    and now we r designin a new product with ATI RS480 for 939 ,
    waiting us ?^&^
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    DDC wrote:
    > Which one is the best one?
    >
    > I got this...
    > AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
    > and
    > ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
    >
    > I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
    > (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
    > that as more feature?
    >
    > For now i'm one a socket a, a 2600 xp and i would like to move to one
    > of these two. Also i've read that 3200xp compare to a 280064xp is
    > almost the same thing in terme of speed??? It's less expensive and it
    > would be maybe wiser for a gamer like me huhh huhh! ( i would
    > overclock it to a 3400 ) But again it's the socket that i can't figure
    > out...
    >
    > :-L
    >
    >
    >
    > I've base my compare with this little program : uamd.exe
    > uAMDtool
    > Universal AMD Tool v1.0

    Just bought an Athlon 3500+ S939, A8N-SLI, WinXP Pro, 1 Gig DDR400 ram,
    SATA-NCQ 120gig HDD, Winfast 6600GT PCIe, and Antec Sonata TruePower
    380. Runs great. Should keep me happy for a year or two and in 6 months
    I can throw in another 6600GT to keep up with the latest games.

    Ron
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus Socket CPUs Motherboards