Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Socket 939 Upgrade

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 3, 2007 4:44:29 PM

Hello fellows,

I have an Asus A8V Dlx Mobo that supports all socket 939. I wanna make sure I get the best bang for the buck. Which is the best out of these 3 choices? The only game I play is UT2k4, then is mostly applications and video.

- AMD Opteron 144 Venus 1.8GHz Socket 939 Processor Model OSA144BNBOX

- AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA4000DKA5CF

-AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Toledo 2.0GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA3800DAA5CD

Thanks -T.

More about : socket 939 upgrade

April 3, 2007 4:56:30 PM

Quote:
Hello fellows,

I have an Asus A8V Dlx Mobo that supports all socket 939. I wanna make sure I get the best bang for the buck. Which is the best out of these 3 choices? The only game I play is UT2k4, then is mostly applications and video.

- AMD Opteron 144 Venus 1.8GHz Socket 939 Processor Model OSA144BNBOX

- AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA4000DKA5CF

-AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Toledo 2.0GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA3800DAA5CD

Thanks -T.
x2 3800+. It will do the job fine in UT2K4, yet having dual-core will pay-off nicely in video "work", and other applications. GL :) 

PS. You can always overclock the dual-core to match the other single-cores in non-threaded apps/games.
April 3, 2007 5:59:18 PM

Like two other guys said, X2 3800 is the best option of those three.
BUT...
if the UT2K4 is the only game that you play then AMD64 4000+ would be better... why?? take a look at Here!
on the other hand you can easily OverClock X2 3800+ to 2.4~2.6GHz (if you are into OverClocking!)
my recommendation : X2 3800+
Related resources
April 3, 2007 11:11:01 PM

Done. I just bought the X2.

Thanks for making my mind up. :D 
April 3, 2007 11:42:42 PM

Quote:
Done. I just bought the X2.

Thanks for making my mind up. :D 


good choice. 8)
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 4, 2007 12:26:45 AM

If you had any brains you would have gotten the 4000 chip. It's a helluva lot faster than the 3800. Having said that, I would have shopped for a faster dual core.
April 4, 2007 12:29:13 AM

Quote:
If you had any brains you would have gotten the 4000 chip. It's a helluva lot faster than the 3800. Having said that, I would have shopped for a faster dual core.


:roll:
April 4, 2007 12:44:59 AM

Quote:
I'd go with the opteron 165/170, best band for your buck if you can afford the optys, far better than the 4000 chip anyways


only if he is into overclocking.
and the rest of his sys is too.
April 4, 2007 1:25:46 AM

i agree the opty would/should be better.

but he listed a 144,(singlecore)4000, and 3800 x2.

the dualcore would be the best route.
although i havent seen any difference (so far)
from my 3700 to my x24400. :?
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 4, 2007 1:43:32 AM

although i havent seen any difference (so far)
from my 3700 to my x24400. :?[/quote]

My 4400 is slower than my 3700. Perhaps it's the difference in other hardware between our two machines. However, the 3700 is slower than a 4800 I have in another machine, which also had the same 3700 in it. The ghz ratings between the chips don't really mean that much.

If you goto Toms' cpu charts, for me, they were almost right on as far as these chips are concerned. But for me, the 3800 vs the 4000 were way off. The 4000 beat it.... unless you were doing two things at once......

My primary use for machines is gaming oriented.
April 4, 2007 1:52:55 AM

Quote:
although i havent seen any difference (so far)
from my 3700 to my x24400. :?


My 4400 is slower than my 3700. Perhaps it's the difference in other hardware between our two machines. However, the 3700 is slower than a 4800 I have in another machine, which also had the same 3700 in it. The ghz ratings between the chips don't really mean that much.

If you goto Toms' cpu charts, for me, they were almost right on as far as these chips are concerned. But for me, the 3800 vs the 4000 were way off. The 4000 beat it.... unless you were doing two things at once......

My primary use for machines is gaming oriented.[/quote]

i have experience with (hands on) and extensive.
with the fx55,fx60,x24400,x24800,x24600,3700,4000,3200,3500.
and have seen no difference in game play.

the videocard and extra ram make the most difference.

even with the 512cache on the 32,35,and4600 compared to the
1m of cache for the others.
maybe i have dull senses :p 
April 4, 2007 1:54:31 AM

:oops:  i kinda screwed up on my post and your quotes.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 4, 2007 2:04:28 AM

Are you sure, when it comes to some of those chips, you can't tell the difference betwen a "standard" chip and those fx chips ? I can. Maybe partly because I already know whats in the box before I sit in front of it.... ? but they always seem faster to me.

And yes, other hardware helps the chips along as well. Been messing with machines and hardware for years now myself. But haven't tried everything yet.

Still haven't built a core 2 duo for myself and might not. What I have now can't be beat by 2x the speed so I don't see wasting the money on myself. However, I'm keeping my eyes on whats around the horizon, and might "bite" in the near future, who knows.
April 4, 2007 2:04:34 AM

Quote:
although i havent seen any difference (so far)
from my 3700 to my x24400. :?


My 4400 is slower than my 3700. Perhaps it's the difference in other hardware between our two machines. However, the 3700 is slower than a 4800 I have in another machine, which also had the same 3700 in it. The ghz ratings between the chips don't really mean that much.

If you goto Toms' cpu charts, for me, they were almost right on as far as these chips are concerned. But for me, the 3800 vs the 4000 were way off. The 4000 beat it.... unless you were doing two things at once......

My primary use for machines is gaming oriented.

i have experience with (hands on) and extensive.
with the fx55,fx60,x24400,x24800,x24600,3700,4000,3200,3500.
and have seen no difference in game play.

the videocard and extra ram make the most difference.

even with the 512cache on the 32,35,and4600 compared to the
1m of cache for the others.
maybe i have dull senses :p [/quote]"

----------------------

your senses quite accurate I imagine. the "x2 3800 shines with 8800GTS" post was about this, with a link to prove it.
April 4, 2007 2:07:57 AM

i think, and so did most others.

that for the (op). of the 3 cpu,s he listed the dualcore is the better option.

some one said the 4000 is faster and they are correct.
but the dualcore would better for the future.
April 4, 2007 1:40:48 PM

hey! i need help!!!
i have an amd 64 3000+ on an asus a8ne motherboard with 1 gb of ddr400 ram(512x2) and a xfx 6600gt--256 mb

now i need to upgrade my pc ASAP.since the platform i own is socket 939 i need to know whether its worth upgrading to a better cpu/graphics card with increased memory 2gb(1gb x2) or do i upgrade to a socket AM2 solution(dont want intel).also would the new upcoming amd barcelona cpus have their own socket or stick to the existing AM2 standard.

i have chosen an amd x2(s939) --whtever model i get in the shops around my place and 2 gb of ram with an ati x1900 series card (i always used a nvidia card would like to try out ati).

is this good enough or do i wait for something new?
April 4, 2007 2:30:01 PM

Quote:
hey! i need help!!!
i have an amd 64 3000+ on an asus a8ne motherboard with 1 gb of ddr400 ram(512x2) and a xfx 6600gt--256 mb

now i need to upgrade my pc ASAP.since the platform i own is socket 939 i need to know whether its worth upgrading to a better cpu/graphics card with increased memory 2gb(1gb x2) or do i upgrade to a socket AM2 solution(dont want intel).also would the new upcoming amd barcelona cpus have their own socket or stick to the existing AM2 standard.

i have chosen an amd x2(s939) --whtever model i get in the shops around my place and 2 gb of ram with an ati x1900 series card (i always used a nvidia card would like to try out ati).

is this good enough or do i wait for something new?


I say stick to your Socket 939 system, because upgrading to AM2 will force you to change your Mother Board & your Memory.
So, get two more sticks of 512Mb DDR400 & an AMD socket 939 X2 CPU & an ATI X1950XT or X1950Pro.
want to save more money?? OverClock your CPU to 2.2~2.4GHz & stick to your current CPU.
April 4, 2007 11:57:06 PM

Quote:
Well, I noticed a huge difference from my 3000 to x2 4000 (the x2 is .2ghz faster though) when running spybot search and destroy, or any other cpu intensive tasks, especially for multitasking, I can't put up with the lag of single cores anymore

You mean a X2 3800+, not X2 4000+ or 0.3GHz faster because the X2 4000+ is 2.1GHz and the 3000+ 1.8.
April 5, 2007 2:40:00 AM

thanks a lot people!
but then keeping my existing amd 64 3000+ makes no sense as "I_Love_Tacos" says so.the pure performance is much lower than an amd x2 2 cores are better than one.so its the amd x2 4200/x24600(if its available)
OR
an amd opteron dual core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

i came across this at newegg.but then i dont know if they ship to india.and what would the warranty/replacement schemes be if i buy it from newegg.

also check this out is this cpu like those intel centrinos u get for the desktop ? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

the ram i chose --corsair value select 1gb ddr 400x2
graphics card--confused still--i dont want to upgrade my pc for another 2 years and i do play games--call of duty 2 and test drive unlimited which work very well on my pc--but then crysis wont play that well on my pc.
so do i get a powercolor/sapphire radeon x1900 series damn cheap or wait a bit for the geforce 8600gt to replace my 6600gt. i have given up hope when it comes to amd/ati releasing their new cpus/gpus.
thanks!
April 6, 2007 5:57:43 AM

are there any dual core opterons available???

btw i bought the ram 2 gb of corsair value select memory --1 gb ddr 400 x2
now all tht's left is the cpu and the graphics card.
April 6, 2007 6:11:19 AM

Because you do video apps and very little gaming,I would recommend the X2 3800+ as the proper choice for what you want it to doluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
April 6, 2007 11:58:35 PM

Hey I have a question about all this. I have a pc with this motherboard and running a AMD 939 AThlon 64 3500 cpu. When this motheroard was sold the new Athlon 64 X2 cpu's were not invented yet. Will this 939 motherboard SUPPORT this newer cpu? If so I probably need a BIOS upgrade? The motheroard I have has the newest BIOS below is the motherboard I have.

BIOSTAR NF4ST-A9 Nf4sac21bf.exe 2006/06/09
-Supports AMD Athlon ?64 FX / Athlon?64 / Sempron?processors
April 7, 2007 12:55:45 AM

Quote:
I'd go with the opteron 165/170, best band for your buck if you can afford the optys, far better than the 4000 chip anyways


only if he is into overclocking.
and the rest of his sys is too.


Not even then, just because an Opty used to be among the best o'c when introduced, it has nothing to do with whether it will o'c as far as another contemporary core today. 4000+ often hits 3GHz at default voltage. How high you want to go depends on how much you wanna spend on heatsinking.
April 7, 2007 12:57:57 AM

Quote:
Still, it's dual core for one thing, and has more transitors than the x2 3800, so it should perform better than the 3800 even at stock, and also the optys are far more stable and last longer, but that's just my thought to go for an opty


You are just plain wrong. Clock for clock performance is known, not a matter of guessing about # of transistors. They are not "far more stable" this is complete BS, any properly set up system is stable. There is no 101% stable, 100% is as high as it gets.

They don't last longer either, please refrain from making up nonsense. In any apples:apples comparison the lifespan difference is zero.
April 7, 2007 1:03:01 AM

Quote:
No, I perfectly know what I mean, single core 939 athlong 64 3000 1.8ghz, to the 90nm x2 4000 am2 cpu which runs at 2ghz. I know my own hardware well enough :wink:


Yeah but you dont know your software apparently, because there is no "lag" with single core, there is only a matter of whether your apps were improperly running at too high a priority. If your apps are running at wrong priority, dual core is only a short stop-gap measure, as there are more than two treads running on any serious multitasker's system.

The key is always to fix the application problem and THEN decide what the need is. Removing lag is only a sign you don't understand the purpose of dual core.
April 7, 2007 1:10:43 AM

Quote:
Hello fellows,

I have an Asus A8V Dlx Mobo that supports all socket 939. I wanna make sure I get the best bang for the buck. Which is the best out of these 3 choices? The only game I play is UT2k4, then is mostly applications and video.

- AMD Opteron 144 Venus 1.8GHz Socket 939 Processor Model OSA144BNBOX

- AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA4000DKA5CF

-AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Toledo 2.0GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA3800DAA5CD

Thanks -T.


You write "the only game I play" but then you don't say how often, or how great the desire to optimize towards this rather than anything else.

You don't mention the applications. You mean you seriously RUN APPLICATIONS ON A COMPUTER? REALLY?????@@@@?????!!!!?

No kidding. Now think about the fact that all applications have different requirements, bottlenecks, etc. There is no one CPU that is a winner at similar price points, they all exist in the market for fulfilling different needs and "apps" is not a need, it is a fact of life on a computer. A game is even an application. Running multiple applications does not automatically mean they all need equal CPU time, on the contrary it is usually the case that the one in focus or one related to realtime perception is the one that must be given ample time. It means merely doing multitasking is no reason to use dual cores.

People have multitasked for many years before dual cores came about. Someone who can't do it now without dual core and who sees a lag/etc, seems to be forgetting that even back when CPUs were less than 1/2 as fast, multitasking did not inherantly make a system laggy. It is blaming the wrong thing for a system configuration or software problem.

So basically you did not even come close to providing any info at all that would assist in determining which CPU would suit you most. Instead you fell victim to (perhaps well meaning but nevertheless) people who only swallow marketing drivel, who see some benchmarks of certain higher end popular NEW software and keep forgetting this is a PER APPLICATION benchmark, not a per-genre benchmark and has nothing at all to do with performance of some other app, especially if one you already own instead of spending thousands of dollars more to have the software used to benchmark.

Sometimes dual core IS better. Sometimes it isn't, like when the budget is low, fixed and you'd get a faster single core for the $ and there is one thread among many that needs the most performance per $. All older apps are like this, over 75% of games are like this, and video editing depends quite largely on the codecs used and number of concurrent processing threads, if even CPU intensive at all as video work not necessary = encoding.

I'm not suggesting you make a bad choice with the X2 CPU, only that you make a blind choice without any evidence to support it. It will be a better CPU for future uses, but only you will know, when you replace it, if it was far enough into the future to matter.
April 7, 2007 2:11:32 AM

The increase in transistors is largely due to the Opterons having 2x1MB cache, instead of 2x512K cache.

IMO, the dual core series Opty's, would hit 2.6 to 2.7GHz pretty easy, and anything over that took luck and skill... and then 3GHz is pretty much the ceiling for that lucky minority...
!