Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sockey AM2 & 939

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 7, 2006 6:19:12 PM

Is there any performance difference between the two cpu's? For example; both versions of the 64 3800 single core cpu's. I realize there will be a slight increase in performance due to the AM2 having DDR2 support but other than that are the cores the same in there abilities? Thanx and forgive me for being green. :?

More about : sockey am2 939

July 7, 2006 6:27:12 PM

Unless you are using DDR2 800, AM2 actually takes a performance hit, not an increase... not to mention, AMD is not producing much high end CPU's with 2x1MB cache for AM2, thus abandoning the hard core enthusiast market for AM2... :cry: 
July 7, 2006 8:36:55 PM

Quote:
Is there any performance difference between the two cpu's? For example; both versions of the 64 3800 single core cpu's. I realize there will be a slight increase in performance due to the AM2 having DDR2 support but other than that are the cores the same in there abilities? Thanx and forgive me for being green. :?
Agreed. There is no difference between a 3800+ s939 and an AM2 3800+, but the DDR2 IMC plays a huge role in determining the performance differences between the two. So, in order to compete against s939 with AM2, you need high-end RAM, or else it's a step backwards...performance-wise.
Related resources
July 7, 2006 9:20:57 PM

Quote:
Unless you are using DDR2 800, AM2 actually takes a performance hit, not an increase... not to mention, AMD is not producing much high end CPU's with 2x1MB cache for AM2, thus abandoning the hard core enthusiast market for AM2... :cry: 

where did you read that? @ intel's forum?
AM2 performs about 5-10% better than 939 and that's known and tested FAQs. AMD is also releasing new IMC(integrated memory controller) to work in 1T and according to info. this should increase performance another 5-7%. Wait another week or so for this. Look for the one's that are 35watts TDP. I hear they are overclocking monsters.
July 8, 2006 12:23:29 AM

The CPUs are the same, except for the memory controller. AM2 needed a new memory controller because it uses DDR2 RAM. "Sockey" :lol:  939 has 939 (duh) pins, "sockey" :lol:  (I just can't get enough of that) AM2 has 940 pins.
July 8, 2006 12:48:07 AM

What I'm wondering is whether, despite the high end benchmarks between engineering sample Conroes and socket 939 FX's, will we see any real world difference between the companies that's worth arguing over?

Even within AMD, the biggest advantage I've read about re: AM2 is the "anti-Hyperthreading" promised for AMD dual core processors and single threaded games, but is it worth it to ditch existing DDR for DDR2?

I need to upgrade at least my older PC this summer or fall. I have a 2.8 Northwood on a D865PERL mobo and a 3.0 socket T Prescott 630 on an ASUS socket T X200 chipset board with DDR400. While the second's 64 bit and ready for Vista, it can't equal an X2 or Conroe system.

So, I'm thinking of getting a socket 939 ASUS Crossfire board (the X200 ATI model) with an X2 3800+ when prices drop, so I can use the 2 gigs of DDR 400 from my Northwood. I plan on getting two X1600XTs for the X2 Crossfire. With DX10 coming, I don't want expensive and those X1600XTs can be used for physics down the line.

Then, I'll compare the AM2 Athlon X2's with DDR2 and the Conroes and see which way to upgrade the 630. I'll still use the AIW X1900 in the next single PCIe box (whether it's X2/AM2 or Conroe).

I might just keep the Prescott for one more year, instead of upgrading both this summer. New ATI DX10 boards will be arriving next summer for both AM2 and socket T. That's a plus.

Still need to upgrade the Northwood box. With just a Radeon 9800 Pro, it struggles in Oblivion unless I keep things at low midrange. I definitely don't want to overclock one of those 805's, which is the one option that would work on my current socket T ASUS board.

Hasn't AMD talked about dual processor boards arriving in 2007? So that you can add a second X2 as an upgrade path? Or are they just touting the second socket for physics? I've also read somewhere that Nvidia's considering sockets on the mobo instead of dedicated PCIe GPUs.
July 8, 2006 12:52:05 AM

Quote:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2787&p=8

Seems to me, the 939 boards are beating out the Premium AM2 boards running at 800MHz are being beat out by older chipsets...

Those are all AM2 boards. At least substantiate your absurd claim w/ some 1/2 ass back up.
July 8, 2006 1:01:54 AM

Quote:
AM2 performs about 5-10% better than 939 and that's known and tested FAQs.


BS.

Link 1.
Link 2.

Owned.
July 8, 2006 1:03:15 AM

Quote:
What I'm wondering is whether, despite the high end benchmarks between engineering sample Conroes and socket 939 FX's, will we see any real world difference between the companies that's worth arguing over?

Even within AMD, the biggest advantage I've read about re: AM2 is the "anti-Hyperthreading" promised for AMD dual core processors and single threaded games, but is it worth it to ditch existing DDR for DDR2?

I need to upgrade at least my older PC this summer or fall. I have a 2.8 Northwood on a D865PERL mobo and a 3.0 socket T Prescott 630 on an ASUS socket T X200 chipset board with DDR400. While the second's 64 bit and ready for Vista, it can't equal an X2 or Conroe system.

So, I'm thinking of getting a socket 939 ASUS Crossfire board (the X200 ATI model) with an X2 3800+ when prices drop, so I can use the 2 gigs of DDR 400 from my Northwood. I plan on getting two X1600XTs for the X2 Crossfire. With DX10 coming, I don't want expensive and those X1600XTs can be used for physics down the line.

Then, I'll compare the AM2 Athlon X2's with DDR2 and the Conroes and see which way to upgrade the 630. I'll still use the AIW X1900 in the next single PCIe box (whether it's X2/AM2 or Conroe).

I might just keep the Prescott for one more year, instead of upgrading both this summer. New ATI DX10 boards will be arriving next summer for both AM2 and socket T. That's a plus.

Still need to upgrade the Northwood box. With just a Radeon 9800 Pro, it struggles in Oblivion unless I keep things at low midrange. I definitely don't want to overclock one of those 805's, which is the one option that would work on my current socket T ASUS board.

Hasn't AMD talked about dual processor boards arriving in 2007? So that you can add a second X2 as an upgrade path? Or are they just touting the second socket for physics? I've also read somewhere that Nvidia's considering sockets on the mobo instead of dedicated PCIe GPUs.

If you have good DDR400, then a 939's cpu is a smart move. I think opterons are going to drop in price also. So a s939 3800x2 or an opteron 165/170 is least expensive upgrade. s939 still has a lot of life and juice in it for any task today and a year or 2.
July 8, 2006 1:04:43 AM

So you are sure that AM2 at less than 800MHz speeds are faster than their socket 939 counterparts???

Care to explain why or how the exact same CPU simply on a different chipset with higher latency can perform faster?

[/waiting]
July 8, 2006 1:12:31 AM

Quote:
AM2 performs about 5-10% better than 939 and that's known and tested FAQs.


BS.

Link 1.
Link 2.

Owned.
Both links shows AM2 system faster.
Now I know some of you idiots cant even read. Jut following your misguided masters here.
July 8, 2006 1:14:50 AM

Thats not 5-10% moron. The highest in the anandtech one was 4% in real world apps.
July 8, 2006 1:21:55 AM

Quote:
Thats not 5-10% moron. The highest in the anandtech one was 4% in real world apps.

Ok lets just for sake of arguement accept your figure-to be 4% faster.
Is that an admition? or you dont know the diferrence between "0" and "4"

Theses Intel fanboys have found themselves between rock and hard on's.
They are realizing the con-roe hype is nothing but Intel's usual deceit. No good board to support it, No SLI, Crossfire, and PATA, ½ ass GPU, system instability and recalls . No word yet what Intel gonna do, probably just push con-roes out the door before going bankrupt.
Listen losers- AM2 is future proof and by the time you figure what board will transpire from your master or if bugs fixed, AMD members are well into benching K8L's.
pathetic losers.
July 8, 2006 1:27:49 AM

Quote:
Ok lets just for sake of arguement accept your figure-to be 4% faster.


4% at most, its a fact. Check my links I provided.

Quote:
Is that an admition? or you dont know the diferrence between "0" and "4"


When did I ever say it was 0%?

Here comes the FUD, time to shoot it down!

Quote:
They are realizing the con-roe hype is nothing but Intel's usual deceit.


Read some benchmarks moron.

Quote:
No good board to support it


BS.

Quote:
No SLI


FUD! No SLI on Intel boards. Nvidia chipsets will provide it.

Quote:
Crossfire


More FUD! Intel and ATI boards provide this.

Quote:
and PATA


More FUD. No 965 it doesnt have it natively, it just requires an external chip.

Quote:
No word yet what Intel gonna do, probably just push con-roes out the door before going bankrupt.


Are you shaikou?

Quote:
AMD members are well into benching K8L's.


Link? According to their roadmap by they wont even have K8L by Q3 2007 and they're still going to have 90nm FXs.

STFU FUDie!
July 8, 2006 2:08:02 AM

Quote:
=JumpingJack's
bs...bs...bs...bs...

I dont know where you cooked that table, but you need to compare the DDR2 667 1:1 w/ tight timing and compare it to DDR400 and tight timing to get a meaningful comparison.
I can show you in the same setup using same DDR400, one looser timing than the other, the performance hit would be up to 20%.
The overall performance of same price range AM2 is about 5-10% better than s939-That's known fact and any AMD user will tell you that. This subject has been argued ever since AM2 was announced and reviewed(in many sites). I dont need to rehash this or keep repeating same thing over and over. Your effort to prove that AM2 is slower or not a better buy is plain worthless. Take your BS to your Intel buddies/masters.
I say it again: If you already have s939 system it is not worth the upgrade for the expense involved. but if you are building from scratch It is better to go w/ AM2. Better mobo's more ameneties chipset (Nvedia 570/590), 5-10% performance increase, better IMC(gota love imc), and a path to future upgrade. Any AMD forum or user will tell you that. case closed.

EDIT: I went ahead and put together some 2x1gig DDR2 800 and as you can see they are cheaper than most of DDR400 2x1gig. So why would anyone want to buy some lousy DDR2?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?N=2010170...
July 8, 2006 2:12:59 AM

Quote:
The overall performance of same price range AM2 is about 5-10% better than s939


No its not. My links say otherwise.

Quote:
That's known fact and any AMD user will tell you that.


99% are fanboys and/or idiots.

Quote:
Your effort to prove that AM2 is slower or not a better buy is plain worthless.


When did anyone say that? Seriously where? When?

I will say it again: STFU with your FUD!
July 8, 2006 2:20:10 AM

Quote:
AM2 performs about 5-10% better than 939 and that's known and tested FAQs.


BS.

Link 1.
Link 2.

Owned.
Both links shows AM2 system faster.
Now I know some of you idiots cant even read. Jut following your misguided masters here.

What I said...
Quote:
Unless you are using DDR2 800, AM2 actually takes a performance hit, not an increase... not to mention, AMD is not producing much high end CPU's with 2x1MB cache for AM2, thus abandoning the hard core enthusiast market for AM2...


Let just keep this in perspective... :wink:
July 8, 2006 2:20:20 AM

AM2 doesn't provide a serious performance boost, it is just for the future and for ddr2 support. STFU you guys are complaining about such a minimal difference it is ridiculous. Face it AM2 doesn't give a 5-10% performance boost.
July 8, 2006 3:25:56 AM

Keep arguing amongst yourself(Intel puppies) trying to prove AM2 is a bad move. Those reviews done 2 months ago and all in 2T command rate.
Never the less, The average performance Increase vary from 1% to 28%(bandwidth). Overall performance increase is 5-10%- keep believing what you wish puppies.
As said before AM2's new mem controller is 1T capable and will definitely increase performance another 5-7% to bring the overall performance increase to 10-15%.
Anyone is interested in AM2 build will look for answer in right places and will not give a rass ass about these puppies beating on their hollow heads trying to prove otherwise.
The move to AM2 was not based on performance increase (even though the DDR2 IMC has given about 5-10% improvement), but was for the transition to DDR2 and a path to future architecture (K8L, AM3, HT3, DDR3, Torrenza..etc). With new IMC in 1T, and tighter DDR2 timings (already in progress), expect about 10-15% performance increase from s939- bottom line. You heard it from a knowledgeable AMD user, and that’s what should matter to you (not intel puppies barks) . Comes rev G this winter expect at least 25% increase in performance. This increase in performance will make AMD's system the fastest available (considering Intel has not scrapped conroe because of bugs not fixed or no motherboard support/ lack of)
This Information is for those who are genuinely interested in AM2 (not the Intel puppies) and for those intel users who are fed up w/ constant and annoyingly barking intel puppies.
July 8, 2006 3:45:53 AM

God you're idiot. You get owned then you start rambling on about something else.

Quote:
Keep arguing amongst yourself(Intel puppies) trying to prove AM2 is a bad move.


Again who said it was?

Quote:
Overall performance increase is 5-10%- keep believing what you wish puppies.


You're the one who keeps on believing in what you want to hear. I've shown actual benchmarks proving you wrong.

Quote:
You heard it from a knowledgeable AMD user


:lol: 

Quote:
Comes rev G this winter expect at least 25% increase in performance.


Next year and its just a die shrink.

Quote:
(considering Intel has not scrapped conroe because of bugs not fixed or no motherboard support/ lack of)


FUD.

Quote:
This Information is for those who are genuinely interested in AM2 (not the Intel puppies) and for those intel users who are fed up w/ constant and annoyingly barking intel puppies.


Fock up with this sh!t or I'm reporting your ass.
July 8, 2006 3:51:16 AM

Quote:
Keep arguing amongst yourself(Intel puppies) trying to prove AM2 is a bad move. Those reviews done 2 months ago and all in 2T command rate.
Never the less, The average performance Increase vary from 1% to 28%(bandwidth). Overall performance increase is 5-10%- keep believing what you wish puppies.
As said before AM2's new mem controller is 1T capable and will definitely increase performance another 5-7% to bring the overall performance increase to 10-15%.
Anyone is interested in AM2 build will look for answer in right places and will not give a rass ass about these puppies beating on their hollow heads trying to prove otherwise.
The move to AM2 was not based on performance increase (even though the DDR2 IMC has given about 5-10% improvement), but was for the transition to DDR2 and a path to future architecture (K8L, AM3, HT3, DDR3, Torrenza..etc). With new IMC in 1T, and tighter DDR2 timings (already in progress), expect about 10-15% performance increase from s939- bottom line. You heard it from a knowledgeable AMD user, and that’s what should matter to you (not intel puppies barks) . Comes rev G this winter expect at least 25% increase in performance. This increase in performance will make AMD's system the fastest available (considering Intel has not scrapped conroe because of bugs not fixed or no motherboard support/ lack of)
This Information is for those who are genuinely interested in AM2 (not the Intel puppies) and for those intel users who are fed up w/ constant and annoyingly barking intel puppies.



Welcome back MMM! Baron Matrix will be absolutely delighted that you stopped by. (He will now have someone to share the comic relief duties with). Oh and by the way I check in on you blog now and again. Good stuff! ever thought about becoming a politician?
July 8, 2006 3:53:16 AM

Nah, this guy is way way too stupid to be MMM. Yeah MMM was a fanboy and an idiot at times but this guy is on another level.
July 8, 2006 4:01:12 AM

Quote:
Is there any performance difference between the two cpu's? For example; both versions of the 64 3800 single core cpu's. I realize there will be a slight increase in performance due to the AM2 having DDR2 support but other than that are the cores the same in there abilities? Thanx and forgive me for being green. :?


The AM2's do not overclock on the same level as a 939.
July 8, 2006 4:04:52 AM

Not true, AM2s overclock better.
July 8, 2006 4:11:29 AM

Whilst it does sound a lot like him, I'm going to say its probably a reader of his crappy blog or something like that.
July 8, 2006 4:19:49 AM

I have glanced thru your posts and randomly picked a few and read nothing. literary nothing. >5000 posts and not one w/ any substance or technical knowledge (from reading a few randomly).

The puppy who says I am "MMM"- Anyone refuses to be gullible and exposes your master's deception is "MMM" to you.
But I don’t blame you- you are not bright to recognize the difference.
At least action puppy knew that much.
But this is not a complement action puppy. I still think your 5000 posts worth a "5 words" sentence. And that is a complement.
See, already like you :)  now do a flip.
July 8, 2006 4:24:39 AM

Quote:
I have glanced thru your posts and randomly picked a few and read nothing. literary nothing.


Try harder moron.

Quote:
>5000 posts and not one w/ any substance or technical knowledge (from reading a few randomly).


Its easy to tell this is BS because I have ~3000 posts not > 5000 posts.
July 8, 2006 4:37:51 AM

Quote:
Is there any performance difference between the two cpu's? For example; both versions of the 64 3800 single core cpu's. I realize there will be a slight increase in performance due to the AM2 having DDR2 support but other than that are the cores the same in there abilities? Thanx and forgive me for being green. :?


The AM2's do not overclock on the same level as a 939.
Oh Gee.
another Intel's web terrorist. Stop it already, you'r bankrupting your boss.
AM2's are known to overclock better. The 3800 x2 s939 does 2.7ghz, but I have seen 3ghz on air w/ AM2.

To OP, please look into these poster's past before you take seriously what they say . This forum in infested w/ Intel bugs.
I suggest visiting the forums below for any valuble info.
Those 2 sites have Intel and AMD section and controll misinformation.
You will find the right/correct answers, instead of all these nonsense and bias views. I suspect a lot of these guys are paid buy Intel to spread fuds. Intel has a history on this.
Do not listen to anyone here (including me). Go to those forums and direct your Q?, be it Intel or AMD.
Unfortunately Unlike the excellent reviews it conducts this website does not have a good forum format.

http://www.ocforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=...
July 8, 2006 4:40:59 AM

So you're here to advertise other forums, how sad.

Quote:
I suspect a lot of these guys are paid buy Intel to spread fuds.


Whats with you AMD guys? You do it for free!
July 8, 2006 4:46:22 AM

Quote:
Not true, AM2s overclock better.

See, that's better. Be truthful and you will like yourself more.
You probably lost some of your Intel buddies now. But at least you are at ease w/ your soul, and that counts the most.
I will forgive you for being an idiot on occasion.
July 8, 2006 4:48:08 AM

Its so sick, I cut you down and then you change the topic. Its obvious that I've hurt your pride.
July 8, 2006 4:51:05 AM

Quote:
.I suggest visiting the forums below for any valuble info.
Those 2 sites have Intel and AMD section and controll misinformation.
You will find the right/correct answers, instead of all these nonsense and bias views. Unfortunately Unlike the excellent reviews it conducts this website does not have a good forum format.

http://www.ocforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=...
Then go back to those forums and don't come back...or else STFU
July 8, 2006 4:53:11 AM

Quote:
Not true, AM2s overclock better.


Eh?
What I said was:
Quote:
The AM2's do not overclock on the same level as a 939.


So what part of what I said is "Not true"?

Now you said:
Quote:
AM2s overclock better


I don't think a 1-4% boost is much....given that the tests needed DDR2-800 ram AND the high cost of the new CPU/MB/RAM to get that small gain.

I will stick with my 939 pin Optrons that usally have a 1Ghz OC on them and be a Happy Gamer and put that extra money into my house.

Z
July 8, 2006 4:55:15 AM

I don't want to go off on a rant here, but...

OK, I don't have any numbers or links to support what I am saying in here, but, just like a lot of people in here, I am just going to pull shite out of my arse.

Seriously, from what I have read, AM2 is going to be somewhat of a bitch. Buyers are going to have to really pay attention to the actual clock speed of the CPU when they buy RAM. From what I have seen, you could buy DDR2-800 RAM and see it run @ 700! Not cool. I think THG has more info on this.

So far, I haven't really seen any reviews where AM2 is flat-out smoking S939; at least not yet. Why pay such a high price-premium for a few measely percentage points? I doubt if you could even notice it.

Bottom line is that S939 is still a very strong performer, and when Conroe comes out later this month, AMD is dropping most of S939 prices dramatically.

Personally, skip AM2, build S939 (or stay with what you have now), and wait for the next-gen socket (if it's worth it).

Me? I am counting down the days for that S939 price drop. One more good reason to skip AM2: AMD is starting to talk about AM3 with (if memory serves me correctly) DDR3 RAM.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
July 8, 2006 4:56:47 AM

Well with your retarded wording you were implying that 939 is better at overclocking, that its level is better.
July 8, 2006 5:07:17 AM

Quote:
Well with your retarded wording you were implying that 939 is better at overclocking, that its level is better.


Quote:
Well with your retarded wording...


Nothing wrong with my wording at all.
Perhaps it was just the way you read it?

The truth is they OC differantly and that the gains of overclocking an AM2 are not as productive vrs those of OC a 939.

Then there is all that added cost just to build an AM2 system vrs the 939...but thats another issue.

Z
July 8, 2006 5:11:03 AM

No the way you worded would make your english teacher cry. You said they DONT overclock on the SAME LEVEL as a 939, that implies that the 939's are on another level, a higher level.
July 8, 2006 5:36:06 AM

Quote:
.I suggest visiting the forums below for any valuble info.
Those 2 sites have Intel and AMD section and controll misinformation.
You will find the right/correct answers, instead of all these nonsense and bias views. Unfortunately Unlike the excellent reviews it conducts this website does not have a good forum format.

http://www.ocforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=...
Then go back to those forums and don't come back...or else STFU
Arnt you testy?
I am doing fine here watching over you.
July 8, 2006 5:52:42 AM

Quote:
="NewbieTechGod
lots of bs

WOW...
talking about pure BS from a greenei who calls himself "techgod"
Can you erase the last 7 letters of your alias to identify yourself better?
Apparently you don’t know s**t about 939 yet you tire your brain on AM2.
what do you know about memory lower and upper dividers and cpu multipliers?
let me give you a hint. use lower multi and corresponding mem dividers.
BTW it doesn’t work like Intel.
Let me know If you need any help, I will link you to some "noob's" guide
on how AMD cpu multipliers and mem dividers work.
July 8, 2006 5:56:18 AM

Quote:
Its so sick, I cut you down and then you change the topic. Its obvious that I've hurt your pride.

You sound like a women now.
are you a female?
If so i will be more gentle
July 8, 2006 6:03:00 AM

Yeah, send me some of those guides. I'll go ahead and send you a dictionary. However, I seriously doubt if you would know how to use it, which is why your mom/sister/wife/gf/bf left you. Don't worry, your blow-up doll still loves you.

Obviously, irony is beyond your comprehension, so go take some multipliers and phuck yourself! :) 
July 8, 2006 6:05:42 AM

Quote:
Its so sick, I cut you down and then you change the topic. Its obvious that I've hurt your pride.

You sound like a women now.
are you a female?
If so i will be more gentleI've never heard of a gentle hemorrhoid. :?
July 8, 2006 6:20:02 AM

Quote:
Its so sick, I cut you down and then you change the topic. Its obvious that I've hurt your pride.

You sound like a women now.
are you a female?
If so i will be more gentleI've never heard of a gentle hemorrhoid. :?
hahah.
Now you tell us your medical condition.
need a good referal?
July 8, 2006 6:26:19 AM

Now now, theres no need to cry because I handed your ass to you.
July 8, 2006 6:47:16 AM

I suspect there is more than one load of crap with that A$$
July 8, 2006 7:28:42 AM

:D  My understanding of AMD,s plan for AM2 is not a short turn speed gain but rather a longer turn upgrade path with the real gains not coming till Q4 this year and further Q1, Q2 releases next year.
Only then will the AM2 really come in to it's own. (I hope) 8O 8O
So should we all, better competition, better prices :D  :D 
July 8, 2006 1:43:32 PM

*This is actually in reply to the whole thread*

First of all I want to thank those of you who offered sound advice secondly,....Wow! I posted this topic just before I went out yesterday and didn't come home till late last night. I wake up this morning and HOLY CRAP! What did I do? :p  I never meant for this to happen. 8O I merely wanted some truthful info on the difference in the two socket types and their performance differences, if any. See I need to build two new comps fully understanding that there are two new paths to consider Intel and AMD. I realize also that either path is going to require me to upgrade within 6-9 months to obtain the newer cpu, thinking I probably won't be able to get my hands on a Core 2 cpu till first of 2007 do to supply and demand. Also at this point I know of only two MB that supports Core 2 that are available for purchase, the Asus P5W DH DELUXE 975x and the Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3, (maybe I'm missing a some , I don't know) . I'm partial to neither Intel nor AMD. I've owned both over the years and know both have their pros and cons. I suppose needing to buy at this point I just want to make the right decision in the most future proof path. I would like to be able to, once I have the full build completed with either of the newer cpu's, to not have to rebuild within that 1-2 year period to stay on top of the game. Small upgrades are fine full rebuilds suck money wise. So maybe some of you guys would like to steer my down the right path with real data I can sink my teeth into. 1-5% performance increases are, imho, not noticeable in real life game play so please help me out. Help me make an informed, real life, tangible decision not based upon bias.
July 8, 2006 2:17:38 PM

Quote:
Unless you are using DDR2 800, AM2 actually takes a performance hit, not an increase... not to mention, AMD is not producing much high end CPU's with 2x1MB cache for AM2, thus abandoning the hard core enthusiast market for AM2... :cry: 


Is this due to the high latencies on ddr2 ram?
July 8, 2006 2:20:03 PM

yes...
!