Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Socket 939 or AM2

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 26, 2006 11:35:45 PM

Now that socket AM2 has been released is it better to buy an AM2 system or a socket 939 system?
What are the differences? which is more future proof?

Thanks

More about : socket 939 am2

May 27, 2006 1:04:28 AM

Quote:
Performance is basically the same. If you want a PC to last longer and have a better upgrade path, AM2 is much better. Socket 939 only goes up to FX-60 and uses DDR RAM, which costs more than DDR2.

I suggest you get AM2, or wait for Intel Conroe if you want to see results eariler. AM2 is basically 939 with DDR2, but AM2 will see newer and updated architectures and CPUs.

Don't get 939 unless it's for couple of months, which doesn't make any sense to me.


Wow, S939 isn't that bad.. I really doubt it will ONLY last TWO months... will last much longer than that...
May 27, 2006 4:34:56 PM

Thanks for the help.
I'll probably get the AM2 socket then, sounds more futureproof.
Related resources
May 27, 2006 5:30:34 PM

At the moment newegg.com doesn't have any CPU for AM2 better than Athlon 3800+.
May 27, 2006 5:34:59 PM

tigerdirect does have the 4800+ :D 
May 28, 2006 1:29:14 AM

Quote:
Don't get 939 unless it's for couple of months, which doesn't make any sense to me.


I don't think it's quite that simple. If you are going AM2 right now, you either lose vs. 939 (for mid-priced and low end CPUs) or you pop for one of the top end AM2 CPUs. It's going to be at least 6 months before we see 65nm AMD CPUs that *MAY* perform significantly better than current AM2, right? As it is right now, even the best (read: VERY expensive) AM2 CPUs only have a few percent on 939.

Socket 939 is a known quantity. I recently bought another 939 mobo and CPU, knowing that within a year, there's a good chance that the 65nm AM2s will be quite a bit faster and have the "new stuff" buzz. But I got an Opty 170 for under $400 and it flys. After seeing early AM2 reviews, I think it was the right call for now. If I could have waited 6 (or will it be 8, 10??) months, it would have been a totally different situation, but right now, AM2 is no bargain. If I wanted to build on a new platform, it would probably be Conroe, but that wouldn't have met my time constraints either.
May 29, 2006 7:13:45 PM

Well I don't mind spending a little more cash to get a AM2 system instead of 939 if it's going to last me longer. I don't plan to buy another system for at least 3 years so this one has to last me that long with only minor upgrades.
I was planning on getting a X2 4800+ but my big question is AM2 or 939?
I have seen some reviews saying that AM2 is in fact slower (because or the DDR2 ram) than 939 for low clock speeds. At over 2.6Ghz is where DDR2 starts being faster.
What should I do since waiting is really not a choice (I need my new pc in a week):
1) Go the AM2 way.
2) Buy 939

Thanks
May 29, 2006 8:22:00 PM

Quote:
I don't plan to buy another system for at least 3 years so this one has to last me that long with only minor upgrades.

What should I do since waiting is really not a choice (I need my new pc in a week):



I think you better go for AM2. As you said, you don't buy a new system in the next 3 years & willing for the minor upgrades. If you choice 939, I don't think after 2 yr there still have any upgrade for it.

But why don't you switch to Intel?
May 29, 2006 8:59:55 PM

Quote:
Well I don't mind spending a little more cash to get a AM2 system instead of 939 if it's going to last me longer. I don't plan to buy another system for at least 3 years so this one has to last me that long with only minor upgrades.
I was planning on getting a X2 4800+ but my big question is AM2 or 939?
I have seen some reviews saying that AM2 is in fact slower (because or the DDR2 ram) than 939 for low clock speeds. At over 2.6Ghz is where DDR2 starts being faster.
What should I do since waiting is really not a choice (I need my new pc in a week):
1) Go the AM2 way.
2) Buy 939

Thanks

I say go for AM2 but do it smart. Wait till AM2 boards can hold 16Gb's or RAM. Currently Newegg has a nice mobo with 2X PCIE and can hold a max of 8Gb's. While 8Gb's is good I've already seen spec's on a 16Gb epox mobo comming soon.

Another great upgrade is comming soon DX10 in about 3 months. Wait the 3 months and get a 16Gb mobo with a DX10 GPU and your set.

Its true that currently your lossing performance unless you get the top CPU's but the AM2 also replaced the 754 board which only holds 2Gb's and the sempron gets an extra 2Gb's to 6Gb's in the current AM2 boards at a killer low price.

The only way I could justify buying now is in the cheap sempron line.
May 29, 2006 9:34:22 PM

I think AM2 as well but what's the point in 16gb of ram... I highly doubt that he will put in 16gb for what it's going to cost even if Vista will make use of all of it... look at the number of ppl using just 1gb even though anyone can use 2gb...

Plus if you need it in a week just go for it.
May 29, 2006 10:42:20 PM

Given the option I'd definitely recommend going with the AM2 as you have a much longer upgrade tunnel vs socket 939. Even though there's no performance benefit right now, the same will not be true in 12 months. Don't you at least want the option of choosing a letest gen AMD cpu without replacing your mboard and RAM in a year? It's worth the slight price-premium that you'll pay today.

Now, if every penny counts (and I've been there!) then socket 939 is cheaper, but heck, socket 754 is even cheaper still. Dude, AM2.
May 30, 2006 2:46:12 AM

16GB of ram sounds like overkill to me.
May 30, 2006 3:16:42 AM

Quote:
Given the option I'd definitely recommend going with the AM2 as you have a much longer upgrade tunnel vs socket 939. Even though there's no performance benefit right now, the same will not be true in 12 months. Don't you at least want the option of choosing a letest gen AMD cpu without replacing your mboard and RAM in a year? It's worth the slight price-premium that you'll pay today.

Now, if every penny counts (and I've been there!) then socket 939 is cheaper, but heck, socket 754 is even cheaper still. Dude, AM2.

I'm not saying dont get a AM2 I'm saying wait till the 16Gb mobo's come out. Epox has already given the spec's on their 16Gb mobo and should be here in a month. For buying an elite AMD CPU like the K8L a 4Gb mobo may be worthless to you by the time they arrive. Most builders are placing 2Gb's in RAM in mobo's now and by December it'll be the standard.

Quote:
For a gaming PC 2gb is more than enough. You think within the next couple of years he'll need 16gb? Wow. I think it's a good option to have, I just don't see any PC other than a server or a workstation using 16gb of RAM.

Was it Bill Gates that said we'll never need more than 640K or RAM? In 3 years, given Moore's Law, well need atleast an 8Gb mobo. If AM2 boards have the same problem with 4 DDR2 slots as 939's did we'll only have good performance out of 2Gb's. Thus I'd only buy a sempron with 4Gb mobo's because it may offer no good upgrade options.
May 30, 2006 5:15:16 AM

Quote:
16GB of ram sounds like overkill to me.

Definitely. If you are going to shell out the bucks to purchase 16gb of ram at today's prices, then a new mobo on the order form will hardly be pocket change.

Or ditch the 16gb and download linux 8)
May 30, 2006 5:49:10 AM

Quote:
Well I don't mind spending a little more cash to get a AM2 system instead of 939 if it's going to last me longer. I don't plan to buy another system for at least 3 years so this one has to last me that long with only minor upgrades.
I was planning on getting a X2 4800+ but my big question is AM2 or 939?
I have seen some reviews saying that AM2 is in fact slower (because or the DDR2 ram) than 939 for low clock speeds. At over 2.6Ghz is where DDR2 starts being faster.
What should I do since waiting is really not a choice


That last sentence is key, as is the 4800+. Since you're willing to pop for a premium CPU and need it now, Conroe isn't an option and you will get some AM2 performance advantage. If the 65nm AMD CPUs look good, you might upgrade that way in a year or two, probably with some faster DDR2. How are those for minor upgrades?
May 30, 2006 2:31:30 PM

Everyone here seems to be operating under that 939 is dead, hail AM2! Well, not exactly, but... I read somewhere that FX-62 WILL BE RELEASED FOR 939. Now someone is going to say, where the F is your proof? I'm looking for it right now, I saw it on a roadmap, just can't remember where! Here is a wee bit of proof for right now:

Q: Does AMD still plan to support socket 939-pin package parts? If so, for how long?

A: As a customer-centric company, we plan to support the socket 939-pin package parts as long as customer demand warrants it

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9505,00.html#91033
May 30, 2006 4:18:49 PM

Quote:
Everyone here seems to be operating under that 939 is dead, hail AM2!


Since you wrote that in reply to my post, I'll reply back. If you'd taken the time to read the whole thread, you'd have seen that I earlier wrote:

"Socket 939 is a known quantity. I recently bought another 939 mobo and CPU, knowing that within a year, there's a good chance that the 65nm AM2s will be quite a bit faster and have the "new stuff" buzz. But I got an Opty 170 for under $400 and it flys. After seeing early AM2 reviews, I think it was the right call for now. If I could have waited 6 (or will it be 8, 10??) months, it would have been a totally different situation, but right now, AM2 is no bargain. If I wanted to build on a new platform, it would probably be Conroe, but that wouldn't have met my time constraints either."

So be careful with absolutes such as "everyone".
May 30, 2006 5:11:33 PM

I wasn't aiming that at you, no. I was just providing information...I have nothing against you or your choice. I do realize I might have been over-generalizing with my first statement, though. I just clicked reply, it wasn't directed towards you.

~Ibrahim~
May 30, 2006 5:22:52 PM

Quote:
How about this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

What's better this single core opteron or a X2 4800?
By better I mean faster, I know that the X" has two cores and the opteron only one but which one would be better for gaming?


Yikes! I can't imagine plunking down so much cash for a CPU, let alone a single core. At ~$400, you can get an Opty 170 that should overclock to 2.6GHz on air, maybe 2.8. For $325, you can get an Opty 165 that typically OCs into that same range. If you don't want to OC and feel the need for the highest possible AMD clock, then you might just end up spending a pretty penny. In that case - assuming the decision has been made to go with AMD, wanting a high clock and willing to pay for it, I'd go ahead with AM2 and maybe the 5000+ or FX. No doubt those scream with fast DDR2. If you are certain that you want to stick with 939 and again want high clock and not OC yourself, then for sure I would go dual core, probably Opty 180.
May 30, 2006 6:07:58 PM

Quote:
Well I don't mind spending a little more cash to get a AM2 system instead of 939 if it's going to last me longer. I don't plan to buy another system for at least 3 years so this one has to last me that long with only minor upgrades.
I was planning on getting a X2 4800+ but my big question is AM2 or 939?
I have seen some reviews saying that AM2 is in fact slower (because or the DDR2 ram) than 939 for low clock speeds. At over 2.6Ghz is where DDR2 starts being faster.
What should I do since waiting is really not a choice (I need my new pc in a week):
1) Go the AM2 way.
2) Buy 939

Thanks


939's overclock alot better and cost a LOT less.
If your looking for DC get an Optron 165/170 and some DDR500 ram...cant go wrong and it will strill be running strong 5 years from now.
May 30, 2006 7:34:52 PM

Quote:

939's overclock alot better and cost a LOT less.
If your looking for DC get an Optron 165/170 and some DDR500 ram...cant go wrong and it will strill be running strong 5 years from now.


Do you know any good DDR500 mobos?
May 30, 2006 7:39:14 PM

Quote:

939's overclock alot better and cost a LOT less.
If your looking for DC get an Optron 165/170 and some DDR500 ram...cant go wrong and it will strill be running strong 5 years from now.


Do you know any good DDR500 mobos?

I can't remember seeing any mobos advertised as DDR500, but I've used DFI and Asus to OC with DDR500 - no problems. Others too I imagine but I haven't personally tried.
May 30, 2006 9:06:52 PM

Quote:

I can't remember seeing any mobos advertised as DDR500, but I've used DFI and Asus to OC with DDR500 - no problems. Others too I imagine but I haven't personally tried.


So any mb that supports DDR400 is capable of using DDR500?
May 30, 2006 9:24:38 PM

Quote:

I can't remember seeing any mobos advertised as DDR500, but I've used DFI and Asus to OC with DDR500 - no problems. Others too I imagine but I haven't personally tried.


Quote:
So any mb that supports DDR400 is capable of using DDR500?


I've been told by RAM tech guys that it's OK to run higher speed RAM at a lower speed, so I'd guess the answer is yes. But I'd also guess that there are DDR400 mobos that will not be able to extract the optimum performance from DDR500 RAM. Just guessing but a recent review of the DFI 3200 mobo does talk about mobo limits on max OC.
May 30, 2006 10:14:23 PM

Heck, I'm running PC3200 400Mhz DDR with an old Athlon 64 3000+. ...it works fine, had I known better at the time I'd not have bought 2 x 1GB PC3200 to mate to a socket 754. Had I been coming to this forum just a few weeks before I made that blunder...@#$%!

...anyways, point is, you can run higher speed ram at a lower setting. I also figure that when I'm overclocking this A64 3000+ the RAM will not care as its meant to run higher anyways.

Oh, the things you learn as a Noob.
May 30, 2006 10:50:55 PM

While the 939 and AM2 performance is not that much of a difference. With the launch of the AM2 platform however would not change the 939 price for performance reason. Remember when Intel jump to the DDR2 and there's little difference in performance over the DDR platform. But it is better to have the DDR2 platform eventhough it produces little performance over the predessesor. So judging between 939 and AM2 it is better to get the AM2 for the price are the same and still has little performance gain nonetheless and it is futureproof.
May 30, 2006 11:19:52 PM

Why is it better to have DDR2 if there ls little performance gain over its predecessor?

I'd think AM2 might be a better choice than s939 because of its upgrade path. ...but then again, if I were building a system for my mom, who is going to use WordPerfect and Google, the AM2 upgrade-path benefit kind of goes away (for me anyways, I know lots of you would drop an FX62 into your mom's calculator if you could).

When DDR2 presents a clear and unmistakably better performance benefit it'll be attractive on the AMD side...and not just when if I spend $1,200 I'll see some gain. I'm pleased to know that for a good while I can go and get lower cost PC3200 and drop it in a socket 939 with a 3800+ X2 and still have a GREAT machine. ...even though MY primary rig is based on Intel.

AM2 will mature, and unless Conroe and its siblings are all that they're hyped to be my next primary rig likely won't be Intel based, even if I have to say goodbye to the terrific history and discounts I've had with Dell.

I just wish they'd drop the S939 prices, but why should they, when we still pay for them what they cost...its economics.
May 31, 2006 12:13:08 AM

I do remember intels jump ddr2 and there was little gained if any but there was never a loss of performance. this is the second benchmarks i have seen showing am2 losing performance. Is there a reason for this? or could there be othere benchmarks showing better results.

Benchmarks here

I am not in a rush so ill wait till am2 gets a chance to warm up but i dont think ill take a lower performer now just because i can always upgradein the future. besides i plan on a 3700+ so i still have some sckt 939 upgrade room
May 31, 2006 12:47:27 AM

Quote:
Go with the AM2 and do not worry about the 16gb boards. By the time systems need that much ram newer and faster tech will be available and you will probably want to upgrade to that anyway.

Yes buy a 4Gb AM2 mobo that may only run good with 2Gb's, if it has the 939 problem with memory, and just throw it in the nearest land fill before K8L comes out. I like a little more use out of my systems like handing it down to my son or just use it as a server box when it no longer can keep up in the graphics game.

Quote:
When DDR2 presents a clear and unmistakably better performance benefit it'll be attractive on the AMD side...and not just when if I spend $1,200 I'll see some gain. I'm pleased to know that for a good while I can go and get lower cost PC3200 and drop it in a socket 939 with a 3800+ X2 and still have a GREAT machine. ...even though MY primary rig is based on Intel.

The clear benfit, to me, is AM2 mobo's Max memory expanablility is 8 to 16Gb's or possible more RAM. 2 to 4 times the max expanable memory means a good 16 to 32 months of compatablility.

Quote:
I do remember intels jump ddr2 and there was little gained if any but there was never a loss of performance. this is the second benchmarks i have seen showing am2 losing performance. Is there a reason for this? or could there be othere benchmarks showing better results.

Benchmarks here

I am not in a rush so ill wait till am2 gets a chance to warm up but i dont think ill take a lower performer now just because i can always upgradein the future. besides i plan on a 3700+ so i still have some sckt 939 upgrade room

AM2 has no gain, due to the current CPU's use no more bandwidth on the AM2 than on the 939, unless its 2.6Ghz or high CPU's.
May 31, 2006 3:10:57 PM

How's this for a system (@ newegg):

ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe Wireless Edition Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI MCP ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Orleans 2000MHz HT Socket AM2 Processor Model ADA3800CNBOX - Retail

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 SATA NCQ 3Gb/s ST3160812AS 160GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit System Memory Model F2-6400PHU2-2GBZX - Retail

COOLMAX CW-650T EPS12V 650W Aluminum ATX v2.01 APFC Power Supply w/ "SLI" - Retail - Retail

XFX PV-T71F-YDF9 GeForce 7900 GTX (665MHz) 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail

Total: $1433

I think I'll get a socket AM2 mobo and buy a not so expensive processor, in a year or so I can get a FX62.
It's the RAM ok? Or is OCZ better?

What do you guys think?
May 31, 2006 7:00:42 PM

Quote:
ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe Wireless Edition Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI MCP ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail

Nice 8Gb mobo but MSI has a 2X PCIE 8Gb mobo for $114.
Quote:
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Orleans 2000MHz HT Socket AM2 Processor Model ADA3800CNBOX - Retail

I would buy cheap, maybe a 3200+, now and upgrade to a 65Nm CPU later.
Quote:
G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit System Memory Model F2-6400PHU2-2GBZX - Retail

Your mobo is a 8Gb so 2Gb's of RAM is only half full. I would suggest buying only 1Gb or RAM then later Maxing out the 2 slot for better price. Buying 2Gb's is only a good ideal in a 4Gb mobo.
Quote:
XFX PV-T71F-YDF9 GeForce 7900 GTX (665MHz) 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail

Thats a high price GPU you may want to put off buying high right now. Its only 3 months until DX10 cards come out so I would suggest a cheap 7600GS maybe and the new DX10 GPU's should be twice as fast as 7900's.
Nice over all!
May 31, 2006 7:24:21 PM

About the CPU i'm not planning on upgrading it when the 65nm are released. Maybe a year or 18 months from now. So I think I'm gonna go with the fastest AM2 cpu on newegg.
About the GPU you got me thinking there Elbert and I think you are right, why spend so much right now, I can get a cheaper card now and buy a DX10 card in 5 o 6 months.
May 31, 2006 8:12:41 PM

Looking at the cpu comparison charts here at tom's I have noticed that the Athlon 64 3800 normally beats a X2 4400 on most game tests (Doom, Farcry etc) although not by much.
On 3DMark or PCMark test the X2 destroys the 3800.
I'm gonna be using my new system mainly for games.
Is the performance of the 3800 good enough to power most games for the next year?
May 31, 2006 9:06:13 PM

Quote:
About the CPU i'm not planning on upgrading it when the 65nm are released. Maybe a year or 18 months from now. So I think I'm gonna go with the fastest AM2 cpu on newegg.
About the GPU you got me thinking there Elbert and I think you are right, why spend so much right now, I can get a cheaper card now and buy a DX10 card in 5 o 6 months.

Ok, your waiting on the K8L. K8L is a great upgrade path and you'll need atleast the 8Gb mobo so looks like your set. The 3800+ is the fastest on Newegg but the 4000+ should show up any time now. The 4000+ on AM2 is the only single core that matches its own Ghz on the 939 mobo's. That said the price of the 4000+ is at a premium being at or higher than the X2 3800+.

Glade I could help.
May 31, 2006 9:17:43 PM

Quote:
Looking at the cpu comparison charts here at tom's I have noticed that the Athlon 64 3800 normally beats a X2 4400 on most game tests (Doom, Farcry etc) although not by much.
On 3DMark or PCMark test the X2 destroys the 3800.
I'm gonna be using my new system mainly for games.
Is the performance of the 3800 good enough to power most games for the next year?

The 3800+ or 4000+ are the only none FX chips to get for gamming. The 2 core mobo's will show almost no performance over the the same Ghz single cores. I would say save the cash on the CPU and place it on the GPU for games. Currently I've not seen any game multi threaded and that means you'll only be using 1 core on games.

The K8L will change gamming as it can use multiple cores to increase game performance no matter multi threaded or not. K8L specs show extensions that allows a single core to use the FPU's of other cores as its own. Future K8L changes also list extra extensions to use entire cores as one.
I suggest buying cheap now and wait for K8L.
May 31, 2006 9:24:25 PM

Quote:

The 3800+ or 4000+ are the only none FX chips to get for gamming. The 2 core mobo's will show almost no performance over the the same Ghz single cores. I would say save the cash on the CPU and place it on the GPU for games. Currently I've not seen any game multi threaded and that means you'll only be using 1 core on games.

The K8L will change gamming as it can use multiple cores to increase game performance no matter multi threaded or not. K8L specs show extensions that allows a single core to use the FPU's of other cores as its own. Future K8L changes also list extra extensions to use entire cores as one.
I suggest buying cheap now and wait for K8L.


Will the K8L use the AM2 socket?
May 31, 2006 9:26:38 PM

Quote:

The 3800+ or 4000+ are the only none FX chips to get for gamming. The 2 core mobo's will show almost no performance over the the same Ghz single cores. I would say save the cash on the CPU and place it on the GPU for games. Currently I've not seen any game multi threaded and that means you'll only be using 1 core on games.

The K8L will change gamming as it can use multiple cores to increase game performance no matter multi threaded or not. K8L specs show extensions that allows a single core to use the FPU's of other cores as its own. Future K8L changes also list extra extensions to use entire cores as one.
I suggest buying cheap now and wait for K8L.


Will the K8L use the AM2 socket?
May 31, 2006 9:37:52 PM

Quote:
Will the K8L use the AM2 socket?

Yes at first with 2 cores but AMD some time late 2007 to early 2008 will move to new socket design to support the quad and higher core designs.
June 1, 2006 10:15:28 PM

AM2 seems like the way to go. ALthough it doesn´t provide better performance now I can buy a faster CPU later that will take advantage of the DDR2 RAM.
And since new processors are going to be AM2 the upgrading capabilities of AM2 seem better that S939.
June 1, 2006 10:50:38 PM

One cannot simply say that "AM2 is the way to go". He11 for some people socket 754 may be "the way to go". It depends upon what you're trying to achieve.

...if you're looking to spend the fewest dollars you can and FORGET about it for 4 years...is AM2 the way to go? Obviously not.

...if you're building a PC that is just going to serve up music or digital photos...do you even need a socket 939 CPU? Not if a socket 754 is noticably cheaper?

If you want to be on the cutting edge or want an upgrade path that extends as far as possible or when time saved means $$ earned, then, then you build your fastest possible solution. ...and at THAT point you stop being a fan-person and you do the research and get the fastest solution. If AM2 and FX62 represent that objective solution...they lived happily ever after.

I'm not trying to be ignorant, though I may sound so. I'm trying to get a handle on what this Intel vs. AMD, socket 939 vs.AM2 is really all about.

Doesn't it come down simply to the builder's objective and the objective benchmarks? ...or are there really people that just love a chipmaker regardless?
June 2, 2006 12:30:32 AM

Quote:
AM2 seems like the way to go. ALthough it doesn´t provide better performance now I can buy a faster CPU later that will take advantage of the DDR2 RAM.
And since new processors are going to be AM2 the upgrading capabilities of AM2 seem better that S939.
Yup...
Here's the contradiction in your question.
1. You want a system that does not need upgrades for 2-3 years.
2. You want a system that handles games well.
Pick 1. or 2. but not both.
June 2, 2006 2:18:40 AM

Quote:
Doesn't it come down simply to the builder's objective and the objective benchmarks? ...or are there really people that just love a chipmaker regardless?


Seems to me it's a bit like politics. Some folks will remain loyal to their party regardless of what kind of compromises they have to make to stay in that camp. But those are the radical minority - they just stand out because they look so stupid standing their ground. When it gets down to making value decisions, there are all kinds of funky preferences that people use to amplify their bias. One positive experience can breed a healthy (or is it unhealthy?) dose of loyalty. I wouldn't be surprised if there are stacks of dissertations on the subject.
June 2, 2006 2:59:58 AM

Quote:
Yup...
Here's the contradiction in your question.
1. You want a system that does not need upgrades for 2-3 years.
2. You want a system that handles games well.
Pick 1. or 2. but not both.


How's that. I would think that if I got a system that would not need upgrades for 2 years (meaning I'm getting the best money can buy today) then that system would handle games pretty good. Don't see the contradiction there.
Now my objective is a system that in the future will only need minor upgrades to stay current. Let's say a new cpu or gpu one year from now.
I don't want to buy a system that may cost me some $200 less but have to change the mobo, cpu, ram and gpu 18 months form now.
What I want is a system that maybe today will cost me $200 more but 1 year from now I only have to spend on a new cpu or gpu.
June 2, 2006 3:44:18 AM

Quote:
How's that. I would think that if I got a system that would not need upgrades for 2 years (meaning I'm getting the best money can buy today) then that system would handle games pretty good. Don't see the contradiction there.
Now my objective is a system that in the future will only need minor upgrades to stay current. Let's say a new cpu or gpu one year from now.
I don't want to buy a system that may cost me some $200 less but have to change the mobo, cpu, ram and gpu 18 months form now.
What I want is a system that maybe today will cost me $200 more but 1 year from now I only have to spend on a new cpu or gpu.

Its can be done and we can build it but you have to wait 3 months. In 3 months buy DX10 GPU, a mobo expanable to 16Gb's, a 64 4000+, and 2Gb's of RAM. Next year replace your CPU with a K8L. 2 years from now Max out the extra 2 slots with 8Gb's of RAM give you a total of 10Gb's and buy the best GPU that will work with your mobo. Should keep you in the game for 3 to 3 and a half years. For about year or so it will make a good server box then try giving it away.
June 2, 2006 5:15:09 AM

S 939 and AM2 are pretty much the same. The only advantage to AM2 is a better upgrade path. But in the end, it depends on you.

For example, I'm going to order my new rig on saturday, and I chose S939. Why? Because I upgrade ver little, and I usually only upgrade the GPU, and since I will get another rig in 2-3 years, I would just get S939 and get an AM2 (Or whatever socket they have) in 3 years and get a 65nm cpu.

It all depends on you. If you want to get a rig now and don't build a new one for like 6 years and just upgrade as you go along, get AM2.
!