just a simple question...

Yes, that CPU is supported by that motherboard(It will support up to FX-60). You'd better act fast on the 4800+ though, as s939 processors are getting harder to find... since they are being discontinued. GL  

well thanks now i know it will work ... but now i would like to know ... is there a better fit? meaning am i making the right choice? i am as i said earlier making a gaming computer... and i'd like to not upgrade for a-while atleast and i know i'm getting a slightly older model mobo... but i would like the best cpu that it can take you mentioned the "fx 60" ??? i hav'nt heard of that cpu... i am new at this tho.. so if anyone has more info i'd apreciate it thx
-Justin

Personally, I'd pick the 4800. The FX-60 costs about 4-5 times what the 4800 does. FX chips have an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, but they are way too expensive. The 4800 has a good speed and 2M cache which is the highest AMD has right now.

Jo

actually the fx-60 is down to $460 at new egg, so for the price diff between that and the 4800 i'd go with the fx-60

Wow I didn't know it got that low - $448 when I just checked which is sweet. Still though, what makes it so much more than the 4800 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681... ) for $250? That's still 79% more $ for the same cache, 2.6GHz instead of 2.4GHz and an unlocked multiplier. Is the unlocked multiplier that important (i.e. is this chip much more overclockable)? With no plans to overclock, is the 4800 a better buy? I am actually just wondering rbm504, not criticizing - it just seems like FX chips are in a price league of their own (analogous to Athlon vs Sempron), so is there a reason like the architecture being different or something?

Jo

from what i've read the fx60 is much stronger than the 4800. however, i am waiting for an intel e6400 and new mobo (asrock dual vista 775) to be delivered today. the e6400 outperforms the fx60 and only costs $217! the mobo was only $56 and it comes with a free game. i'll post again when i get it up and running to let you know how it works out

There's not enough difference between the 2 for the extra expense. The FX is probably a little better silicon, and might overclock slightly higher... maybe 100MHz.(There's no difference architecturally) If you had a phase-change unit, it may be more overclockable. Go with the 4800, or even a 4400 if you can find one, and overclock it. GL  

Ahh, we think alike - we just got the E6400 & DUAL-VSTA in the mail a few days ago to upgrade my sister's comp at christmas. I wanted to make use of a nice 2GB mushkin HP set especially with memory prices being so high. I'm hoping the mobo works well - I can't believe the low price given that it has so many options (with no competitiors in the AGP & DDR department) and the only parts lacking are true PCIE x16 & 4 SATA ports.

Jo

I see so many of these X2 posts which omit the option of an Opteron, as though these processors are something of a well kept secret, so here's how the AMD 939 dual cores summarize:

X2 Manchester Core 4200, 4600 & 5000 = 512Kb L2 Cache - fair choice.

X2 Toledo Core 4000, 4400, 4800 & FX-60 = 1Mb L2 Cache - good choice.

Opteron Denmark Core 165, 170, 175, 180 & 185 = 1Mb L2 Cache - best choice.

Opterons are server / workstation class processors, so they're more stringently fabricated, tested, selected and binned for stability, and are yielded from "cleaner" silicon semiconductor material. They operate at lower voltages and temperatures per clock, as compared with their X2 desktop conterparts, which make the Opterons the best overclockers, with a ceiling of about 3.05Ghz, using top-of-the-line air cooling.

Although the 939 Opterons are marketed as a Denmark Core, CPU-Z will identify it as a Toledo core. These processors are quite robust, and the boxed cooler is fairly good. My previous rig was a 2.0Ghz Opteron 170 overclocked to 3.0Ghz, and it was such an excellent processor, I can't offer enough praise. Whether you plan to run stock or overclock, an Opteron is a great choice.

I hope this helps you out, and good luck with your rig.

Maybe I missed something...but:

Why not go Core 2 Duo? 8O

Opterons require registered memory. That's probably why people don't suggest the chip.

If the OP doesn't have memory yet, then the Opteron would be a feasible choice.

kerazyguy: Do not, what ever you do, buy the FX-60. You are wasting your money. Better to resell that motherboard of yours, take a loss, and buy an ASUS A8N-E that is compatible with the E6600 chip for about what the FX-60 costs and would kill the FX-60 in performance.

Now, since you've already sunk your money into that dinosaur of a motherboard, I'd get the 4400 and overclock that sucker like crazy. The 4400 is 60 bucks cheaper than the 4800. Not worth the extra money plus you don't even get a fan/heatsink with that. Get the Artic Cooling 64 which is a good price. The Scythe Ninja are very good but also cost much more. If room is an issue, this CoolerMaster is a very good cooler.

Maybe I missed something too, but I'm under the impression that the OP already has this 939 board, and is therefore committed to purchasing a 939 processor.

I'm guessing the C2D won't work on the Athlon mobo he said he already got for $140.

8O

Well that makes sense then. I DID in fact miss something. Thanks for pointing it out.

Not quite true.



The Opteron 1xx processors do not require registered memory. I ran Corsair TwinX2048-3500LL XMS3500 on my Opteron rig.  

Since you're coming from experience it overwrites everything I've read about Opterons. Oh well. Learn something new each day.

Correction from my above post. I mention the ASUS A8N-E (this is for AMD), I meant to say ASUS P5B-E. Oops.

Just picked up an Opty 1212. Billed as NextGen and is basically a 170 for AM2. Runs DDR2 unbuffered, unregistered. OC'd to 2.8 on stock HSF but running at 2.5 till I get a Zalman.

I'm not saying you got ripped off... but I would question that board. I have Asus A8N SLI (non-premium) myself and it IS a great board... however, I bought mine 1.5 years ago. I'm already looking at C2D processors and now I'll have to upgrade my motherboard AND memory. You'll have to use DDR RAM on that board and that almost certainly will not be usable on your next system (that at the very least will require DDR2)

I personally don't know of any advantages of Socket 939 over AM2 at this point... so at least consider returning the board for an AM2 board if you're determined to go the AMD route.

I just bought a spare 939 cpu and board, as I have 6 sticks of pc3200. I don't want to buy ddr2, so $108 for a spare board and cpu makes sense for me. If you don't have ddr yet, I would return the board and go with core2 duo or am2.