Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Any performance differences between socket 939 and AM2?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 18, 2006 8:24:51 PM

I was just curious if there were any performance differences between the socket 939 and AM2. I do know that AM2 has a higher memory speed and the cpus generate less heat than socket 939.
So, is there any visible performance increase in systems that utilize socket AM2 compared to 939?

Thanks.
August 18, 2006 8:58:02 PM

nope...none at all.

you might actually see a small performance decrease :p  in some benchmarks. I had a choice to make when I upgraded a few weeks ago: keep my $200 ddr1 ram or buy new ram to get either a conroe or am2. I chose 939. If your ram isnt good (or you don't have a lot of it), go with AM2 or conroe definitely. If you want to keep expensive ram (or if you have a 939 cpu), go with a 939. (If you are thinking of upgrading) :D 


Techie
August 18, 2006 9:06:03 PM

I was just curious because I was trying to finalize my decision on my first build.

it is going to be a socket 939 4400 x2 with 2gbs ram and a 7900 gt etc....

And it would probably be more expensive to buy the AM2 right now and I probably won't be upgrading the cpu ever in this soon to be system.

On the other hand, I checked out Conroe. It is great, but a conroe system would be more expensive than my 4400 system. Plus this is my first system and I don't need the top of the line and I do have a budget that has to include a monitor, keyboard, mouse.
Related resources
August 18, 2006 9:20:22 PM

The x2 4600+ runs at only $250; I would suggest you get that. Heres what I did:

x2 4600+ s939
Abit AT832x motherboard
x1900xt

However, since you don't have anything yet, I would suggest that you stay away from 939. Yes, it runs at the same speeds as am2, but is probably going to be discontinued by the end of this year. If you ever want to upgrade the cpu, go with either conroe or am2. It just makes more since to go with newer hardware. I had that 2GB of corsair quality ram, so I figured that it was better to save $200. (I don't plan on upgrading my cpu for more than a year) And the ati x1900xt that I got was $340. I saw a huge performance increase from the 7900gt to the x1900xt. Its a better deal seeing as there around a $40-60 price difference.

Techie
August 18, 2006 9:22:45 PM

If you’re going first build Intel Conroe might be your best bet if you can wait for supply to catch up with demand.
But if AMD is your thing then AM2 is probably your best bet because that’s the socket of the future and a few years down the road AMD my stop making 939 processors. The only problem with AM2 is the X2 2X1MB cores are expensive in comparison to 939 X2 2X1MB cores (due in part to AMD's decision to stop making 2X1MB CPU’s at the end of the year).
Just some food for thought.
August 18, 2006 9:47:51 PM

Only the special "energy saving" versions of AM2 chips are lower in power and thus generate less heat. Heat really isn't an issue with AMD anyway.
AM2 ddr2 memory runs faster but with greater latency. Only at FX60/62 levels may you see a difference in performance. If you do not need an upgrade for a few years, then a socket 939 system can make sense. If you are spending enough $ for an X2 4600 and need the whole system, think about a Conroe 6300 with 1GB of ddr2 ram. You won't have to buy a $250 mobo, and it's a better cpu. You will have to carefully select the components and build it yourself though.
Having said all that, a socket 939 mobo and X2 3800+ with 1GB ram and a 7900GT will make a nice system. Don't get a garbage power supply. You can get an FSP for low $ but it works well. Example:
FSP AX450-PN 450watt 12v:2x18a PSU 20+4pin $52+8 8/18/06
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817104954
You can buy cheaper drives (Lite-on, etc for DVD and a smaller Hard drive on sale) without really hurting performance. You will curse choosing a small monitor for years, so don't. Value ram is cheaper and works great.
Hope this helps...
August 18, 2006 10:03:43 PM

Quote:
You won't have to buy a $250 mobo, and it's a better cpu.


It's not actually a better cpu. The x2 4600+ is about the same speed as a e6400. Check THIS LINK
August 18, 2006 10:15:32 PM

Good link. Thanx :) 
August 19, 2006 6:32:52 PM

Quote:
I was just curious if there were any performance differences between the socket 939 and AM2. I do know that AM2 has a higher memory speed and the cpus generate less heat than socket 939.
So, is there any visible performance increase in systems that utilize socket AM2 compared to 939?

Thanks.
Everybody has neglected to mention that in order for an AM2 setup with the same rated CPU(i.e.s939 x2 3800+ vs AM2 x2 3800+) to match the performance of a s939 setup, the AM2 needs DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12 timings. That's the bare minimum to get performance parity. Using any RAM slower than that will perform worse than the comparable s939 system. So..AM2 has a better future, but needs expensive RAM. Techie22 got it reversed. GL :) 
August 20, 2006 1:31:02 AM

I think I will still stick with the s939 4400x2 since it will perform great and my budget is limited to around $1750 usd max including the monitor, keyboard, and mouse.

I don't know if I should then change my decision on the 4400 to a 4600? My origional reason for going for the 4400 was because of the 2x1mb L2 cache and I was thinking that later on I could overclock it to around the 4800 speeds and get the same performance and come out ahead of the 4600.

As far as conroe, it's a good idea but a system with good parts would be out of my price range. And for upgrading for my Amd system, I don't think I will really need to upgrade the cpu for a long time and then I will have to build a whole new system based on the new technology available at that time.

Thanks for all of your input.
August 20, 2006 1:50:18 AM

Quote:
I was just curious if there were any performance differences between the socket 939 and AM2. I do know that AM2 has a higher memory speed and the cpus generate less heat than socket 939.
So, is there any visible performance increase in systems that utilize socket AM2 compared to 939?

Thanks.
Everybody has neglected to mention that in order for an AM2 setup with the same rated CPU(i.e.s939 x2 3800+ vs AM2 x2 3800+) to match the performance of a s939 setup, the AM2 needs DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12 timings. That's the bare minimum to get performance parity. Using any RAM slower than that will perform worse than the comparable s939 system. So..AM2 has a better future, but needs expensive RAM. Techie22 got it reversed. GL :) 

Quick question to make your point even stronger: What RAM is the 939 system using that you mention? Is it DDR400 with CL2? Thanks!
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2006 1:52:10 AM

Quote:
You won't have to buy a $250 mobo, and it's a better cpu.


It's not actually a better cpu. The x2 4600+ is about the same speed as a e6400. Check THIS LINK

Depends... if you're more into gaming then even a lowly E6300 will beat out an X2 4600+.

But I would def recommend a Core 2 Duo or AM2 rig over a 939 rig. It's too old an not longer being updated to warrant a new purchase.
August 20, 2006 2:21:40 AM

yah theres no difference at all so stick with socket 939!
August 20, 2006 4:38:50 AM

Quote:
You won't have to buy a $250 mobo, and it's a better cpu.


It's not actually a better cpu. The x2 4600+ is about the same speed as a e6400. Check THIS LINK

FYI, those are price/performance benchmarks. Not performance benchmarks. Big difference.

In no way is the X2 4600 superior to the E6400 (in terms of pure performance).
August 20, 2006 5:14:59 AM

*hugs jumpingjack*

was that too... gay?
August 20, 2006 5:17:16 AM

Quote:
I was just curious if there were any performance differences between the socket 939 and AM2. I do know that AM2 has a higher memory speed and the cpus generate less heat than socket 939.
So, is there any visible performance increase in systems that utilize socket AM2 compared to 939?

Thanks.
Everybody has neglected to mention that in order for an AM2 setup with the same rated CPU(i.e.s939 x2 3800+ vs AM2 x2 3800+) to match the performance of a s939 setup, the AM2 needs DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12 timings. That's the bare minimum to get performance parity. Using any RAM slower than that will perform worse than the comparable s939 system. So..AM2 has a better future, but needs expensive RAM. Techie22 got it reversed. GL :) 

Quick question to make your point even stronger: What RAM is the 939 system using that you mention? Is it DDR400 with CL2? Thanks!Yes, DDR400 @ CAS2 and CAS2.5.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-socket...

Quote:
As for the benefits of DDR2 SDRAM, we can state that there are none, or there is even negative influence.


DDR2 shows nice bandwidth increases in synthetic benchmarks, and some memory intensive apps, but in real-world usage it takes some expensive RAM to compete. Mind you, DDR400 @ 2-2-2- x isn't exactly cheap either, but 2.5-3-3- x is.. and it takes pretty nice DDR2 to beat that.

Quote:
Summing up everything we have said about the new AMD Socket AM2 platform we have to admit that the introduction of DDR2 SDRAM support is a small evolutionary step forward. Our tests showed that the transition to DDR2 SDRAM doesn’t bring in any significant performance gain. Moreover, you have to make sure that your system uses the fastest DDR2 SDRAM with 800MHz frequency and minimal timings if you want to see any performance improvement at all.


Just something to be aware of.

In DDR2's defence they had this to say.

Quote:
By the way, a significant advantage of the DDR2 memory over the regular DDR SDRAM is the broad availability of high-capacity modules, which should be especially valuable when Windows Vista comes out.


:) 
August 20, 2006 5:35:22 PM

Yeah, Im going to go for a socket 939 based pc. And by the time I will need to upgrade the cpu, there will be newer technology out there and the now new conroe and AM2 cpus will have improved over the older cpus.

So, should I get the AMD 4400 or 4600?
August 20, 2006 6:23:20 PM

The 4600 has 1/2 the cache but is clocked 200MHz faster than the 4400. IMO this should be about a wash and the 4400 is a few $ cheaper. Even if I'm wrong you won't lose choosing either one.
August 20, 2006 6:27:38 PM

maybe we'll see a real performance boost from am2 once it starts using ddr3,but until then i'm going to stay with socket 939 as i am very happy with my machines performance.I recommend 939 for the time being.

Dahak

EVGA NF4 SLI MB
X2 4400+@2.4 S-939
2X1GIG DDR400 RAM IN DC MODE
2 7800GT'S IN SLI MODE
520WATT PSU
WD 300GIG HD@7200
EXTREME 19IN.CRT MONITOR
3DMARK05 11,533
August 20, 2006 6:41:17 PM

If you choose a low latency DDR2-800 DIMM pair (CL4 or less) you'll see a substantial increase in performance in memory dependant applications, but not much in gaming.
If you choose high latency (CL5) DDR2-800 or worse DDR2-667 the performances will be worst than a DDR-400.
August 20, 2006 7:05:29 PM

thanks for the input. I will still get the 4400 s939 since the s939 platform is more mature.

as far as Am2 goes, I may end up getting it in the distant future when Amd (hopeful wishing) gets their cpu's to be the fastest again and still remain cheap. But I don't see the purpose at this point for me since I won't really be upgrading. My only other option would be to go with Intel's Conroe cpu's and I don't really have the money for a good Intel based system right now.

Thanks alot!
August 20, 2006 7:06:05 PM

Something that I took into account when I recently bought my AM2 X2 4200+ is that I was buying 1GB of RAM. I was told by a friend who works selling computer parts that DDR is going to be increasingly difficult to find, hence more expensive. I would say if you're not planning on buying more RAM later then you might as well go 939. If, like me, there are plans to upgrade your RAM, then I would go for DDR2 since it's logical to think it's going to keep getting faster with new technologies. I KNOW this is not exactly performance related, but IMO it is a factor.
August 20, 2006 7:13:11 PM

Quote:
*hugs jumpingjack*

was that too... gay?


Yes ... definitely :lol: 
August 20, 2006 7:44:07 PM

Quote:
*hugs jumpingjack*

was that too... gay?


Yes ... definitely :lol: 

Especially when you consider that his avatar is a purple dinosaur...
August 20, 2006 8:45:07 PM

Didn't used to be. Must be a recent change...
August 20, 2006 11:09:38 PM

Quote:
Didn't used to be. Must be a recent change...
I much prefer his Mel Gibson avatar...Most amusing. :wink:
August 21, 2006 4:04:17 PM

Yes, I would have to agree with you on that. I don't know. I will probably stick with the s939 and find ram when I need it or have the extra money and max it out.

thanks.
August 21, 2006 5:38:19 PM

AM2 will not run DDR3, that's what we got AM3 for :lol: 

I personally will probably be buying AM2 for my comming computer, as I with a AM2 board will be able to make cheap upgrades for quite a while(knowing I won't have the money for a new PC again for ~3 years), not alone because AM2 is the new platform, but also because AMD has assured that AM3(yup that was AM3) processors will work on it.

But offcause if you expect to have the money to buy a new PC when the one you buy gets slow, then socket 939 might be right for you(I'm sure it's a little cheaper), and I'll enjoy keeping up with you without a new motherboard.

Good luck with what ever choice you make!
August 21, 2006 5:51:16 PM

Quote:
*hugs jumpingjack*

was that too... gay?


Yes ... definitely :lol: 

*hugs Jake*
August 21, 2006 5:52:52 PM

I spent like 30 minutes (believe it or not) making this Barney avatar in Photoshop. 25 of the 30 minutes were used trying to figure out different tools in photoshop. lol. I'm a PS noob.

Anyways, i'm keeping it 'cause i spent so much time and energy into it.
August 22, 2006 11:58:41 PM

Quote:
Personally I would go AM2 now because if something were to fry on you 939 system in say a yr or so the parts needed to fix it will be harder to find and more expensive than if you go with AM2.


Fry? My system won't be on 24/7, I will have a surge protector, and if I do overclock, it won't be much. I do not think that it would fry. It does make sense if it had a potential to happen.
August 23, 2006 12:14:16 AM

At the moment, 939 and AM@ are about tied in performance from what I've seen, and building an AM2 will cost more. The advantage of the AM2 is that as it matures, the speeds will pick up and more knowledge will be available for tweaking it to its best. At the same time, 939 is pretty much at a dead end.

If you have a 939 setup, I'd just leave well enough alone for the moment. This time next year, that may well all change.
August 23, 2006 12:33:37 AM

Rabid,

I truly think you would be doing yourself a favor to at least look at the lower end Conroe processors.

Even with the supposed price gouging :roll: :roll: It still merits a look from you. I think the AM2 systems do as well.

Even if you are not thinking of upgrading for the next couple of years there are parts that could possibly survive for your next build (DDR2 for instance, DDR3 is not yet a perforrmance guarantee given DDR2s current abilities in the AM2 systems over DDR)

Your statement that a Conroe build is too much is probably fueled by some of the AMD fanboy tactics on this and other sites.

If you were to look at the many AMD vs Intel threads you will see many people posting side by sides of AMD X2/AM2 builds with the Conroe builds.

@ ~$1750 USDs to spend you can get a pretty healthy system including a 20.1" widescreen LCD panel... Given pricing on the LCD panels now that would likely leave you $1350ish dollars to play with. You could build quite a system AM2 or Conroe with that kind of money.
August 23, 2006 12:38:22 AM

mpjesse,

Just hope you do not get a hug from Sailer...

I'm just saying!! :) 

With a name like Sailer you gotta stand tall with your back to the wall :) 

Sorry was in the Air Force so can not pass up a good sailor joke :) 
August 23, 2006 12:57:03 AM

Rabid,

Also have a read here and you figure out what you should get:

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/21/intel_core2duo_e6400_invades_amd_territory/

Quote:


The E6400 is the lowest-priced CPU that THG has tested whose price falls below our projected AMD price/performance curve. Given the assessed performance of all known AMD dual-core desktop processors, a hypothetical AMD processor whose performance index score was also 2.74, would sell for $537.17. And as our new-format chart shows, the nearest real-world competitor to the E6400 is AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5000+, whose index score is 2.72 but which sells for $360.
August 23, 2006 1:01:41 AM

Quote:
Your statement that a Conroe build is too much is probably fueled by some of the AMD fanboy tactics on this and other sites.


no, I did set up a system on newegg with an e6600 and it came out around $100 more. I know that isn't much, but I want to get a new pc built within the next month or two.

I had my AMD s939 system spec'ed out before summer. So it's not like I just made the decision to go with 'older' more mature technology that was THE best 4-6 months ago.

Unless you or someone else can find me a conroe system that has monitor, keyboard, mouse, 2gb ram, a good gpu and other components for $1750 or less, I will stick with the AMD.

Oh, and I am planning on ordering from newegg.com (if you haven't already noticed)
August 23, 2006 1:19:20 AM

Quote:
Yeah, Im going to go for a socket 939 based pc. And by the time I will need to upgrade the cpu, there will be newer technology out there and the now new conroe and AM2 cpus will have improved over the older cpus.

So, should I get the AMD 4400 or 4600?


Unless you "need" dual cores for some reason I would just get an Optron 146. They cost $150 boxed and OC to 3Ghz on stock volts (thats a 1Ghz OC). They go higher if you want to add volts.

Use some G.Skill DDR500 ram and OC it also (still on stock volts) Part # USU2-4000-2GBHZ.
August 23, 2006 1:42:42 AM

Ok Rabid here ya go,

Component Price Comments
Processor $560.00 Conroe E6400/ATI 1900GT 256mb Combo Deal
Motherboard $269.00 ASUS P5W DH Deluxe
Memory $163.00 2gb DDR2-800 6400 OCZ Gold 2x1gb
Hard Drive $200.00 1x500gb biggest drive not fastest I could find
Video Card See above combo with proc
DVD RW $32.00 Samsung DVD RW 18X
Power Supply $65.00 Antec SP-500W
Case $69.00 ThermalTake On sale
K/M Combo $99.00 Logitech Bluetooth MX500 Combo
Monitor $285.00 BenQ 20.1" Widscreen 8ms

Total $1742.00 USD...

This is trying to use all premium parts.... Monitor could be better and so could the case but both are decent.
August 23, 2006 1:51:32 AM

You really can stop the I can't afford Conroe thing now...

It is old and tired.....

Read the pages I linked to above.. There is also an anandtech build out of a Conroe budget system that when benched smokes most AMDs and it was running the E6300. PLEASE DO NOT BELEIVE ME!!! Read it yourself..

I even used a premium drive in that mix at $200.00 and you could probably easily find two 250gb drives and RAID them for that price.

If you like AMD that is fine.... More power to you and I will even help you build/configure an AMD.... Just say so... Those were ALL Newegg pricing too.

When people come on here looking to build just like yourself they may determine that they too can not afford a Conroe based upon reading your statements. This is simply not true.
August 24, 2006 1:44:01 AM

Ok. I took the gpu, motherboard, cpu, and memory and added it to the other parts I was planning on getting.

These are the parts:
$70 case
$89.99 antec truepowerII 550 watt psu
$80 seagate perpendicular recording 250 gb drive
$270 Viewsonic vx922 19" monitor
$30 nec dvd-burner
$75 sb audigy2 zs
$40 saitek eclipse keyboard
$52 G5 mouse
$90 XP home
$60 logitech 5.1 speakers
$8 floppy drive
______________

Total:$1,869.30 (give or take a few dollars)

This is from newegg.com and I chose a little different ram (still the OCZ gold, but costed $197)

I could go for a basic keyboard, no sound card, and 2.1 speakers (which are about 15-20 dollars less) and the whole thing could be about $100 less. These are the parts I picked for my AMD system so i thought I'd add them to this list.

Also, I could opt for an e6300 which is about $50 dollars less and I believe (according to tom's conroe article) it performs just as good as the e6400.

I still believe I want to buy AMD. The cpu, gpu, motherboard, and ram you suggested costs almost $1000 whereas my AMD costs around $870. That's a difference. (using my parts).


It would be cool to oc an opty, but I would like something sorta 'easy' in the sense that I don't really want to overclock right away because it's my first built system. Somewhere in the future I would like to try though.
August 24, 2006 5:12:18 AM

There is no benefit to AM2 at this moment, unless, as has been said, you buy an FX chip and sub-5 timing DDR2-6400 ram.

People talk about "future-proofing" yourself by buying AM2, since AMD has stated that processors designed for the the next-generation AM3 socket will be backwards compatible with AM2.

This is also bunk. While your shiny new AM3 processors may work with your AM2 board, do you really think technology will have stood still in the meantime? Are you *really* going to throttle your new high-performance processor with an old motherboard/socket, which may not support higher-bandwidth ram, the newest FSB speed, etc etc?

If you will be waiting until AM3 has reduced in price enough that it won't matter to you whether your AM2 board throttles it, it'll be a few years and you will *definitely* need a new board.

In other words, AM2 is a waste of time and brings you ZERO advantage. If you need a system now, buy socket-939, save some cash, reuse some fast DDR3200 if you have it, build on some of the awesome and tried-and-tested solutions out there.

Then upgrade your board and processor when AMD comes out with something that can really challenge Conroe and/or whatever's next from Intel.
August 24, 2006 8:49:38 PM

Thanks mythos. I have to agree with you 100%. I figure that by the time my AMD cpu is slow in some games and other programs, I will upgrade the motherboard and other stuff since by that time new technology will be out.

And I really don't need to 'future proof' my pc since I'm on a 3 yr old Dell 4550 that has only had a gpu and memory upgrade and still runs games fine. I guess my point is that 'I do not need a super powerful system'. I do game but not heavily.
August 24, 2006 9:19:33 PM

Quote:
mpjesse,

Just hope you do not get a hug from Sailer...


I'm just saying!! :) 

With a name like Sailer you gotta stand tall with your back to the wall :) 

Sorry was in the Air Force so can not pass up a good sailor joke :) 


By the way, I was in the Air Force too, until a medical discharge took me out. Since my flying days were over, I took up sailing a sailboat because it was relaxing.

As to giving hugs, if it's not a she and she's not got a good bod, I walk on by and keep on looking.
!