Upgrading 939 CPU, Heatsink & Compound?

[mike649]

Currently running:

Asus A8s-X SIS (939)
w/3200 AMD single core


Was thinking of upgrading to a AMD 4400 X2. I hear the 4400 is better choice than the 4600 because of the larger cache size. Don't know if thats legitimate?

To my knowledge other than the 4400 I could only go to the 4600/4800, is that true?

I assume the stock fan from AMD will not be very quiet. Anyone know what would be a good option for a quiet yet efficient fan for me?

Also whats a good thermal compound to use?

 

[thedrake]

I had a x2-4400(939) for a while. It was the 89w version. I had some issues with either my mobo or the proc, so I sent both back. AMD sent me an X2-4800(939) 110w instead.

I had done quite a bit of testing with the 4400, I repeated all of the testing with the 4800. The only thing I noticed a significant improvement on were the benchmarks. Real world I didn't noticed any difference. Both of these have the extra cache...not sure if they are still selling with 1mb per core, though.

I'd probably try to find an FX60 first, short of that, I'd get the 4400, unless you can get the 4800 for just a few bucks more.

I'm running the stock, heatpipe fan fan that came with the 4800. It isn't that loud. The 4400 I got came with the old non-heatpipe fan. It was plenty good enough too.

In both cases I used what came with the retail cpu. I should also mention that I OC'd the 4400 to fx60 speeds. The 4800 a bit beyond, but only a few mhz. Again, all stock equipment, hsf, compound, et.c..

 

[quantumsheep]

Try getting an Opty if they're available at a decent price.

 

[mike649]

I dont know about the Fx60, will it work with my M.B?

What is an Opty?

Quick data pull combination of used/new prices from high to low:

4400's $115-175
4800's $160-285

I was leaning toward a 4400, under the impression it would be best bang for buck. But I did not research the FX60...??

 

[aBg_rOnGak]

Opty is Opteron, they're not really intended on normal desktop use IMO, but can be used. All that I know (correct me if I'm wrong), they perform quite similarly in real world apps, but they have lower TDP and can OC well.

 

[EXT64]

Yes, the FX-60 will work if the 4800 will. The FX-60 will have the best OC ability, however I do not know where you would find one (at least not new). The 4400 is an excellent deal, and probably cold be OC'ed to a 4800. Where are you finding new 939s? I thought that they were no longer made or sold.

I'd say, if you can find a new/good condition:

4400 for $130
4800 for $170
FX-60 for $190

Then go for it. I'd be a little cautious about buying a used processor unless you trust the source. If it wasn't abused, it should work great. If they really cranked up the voltage, however...

 

[cisco]

FX-60 would be the best, or an Opty. I have the 170 on one of my machines, it's a pretty solid processor.

 

[mike649]

Theres some new 939's on ebay.

I have no experience with Overclocking, but always here others mentioning that... That'll be the next thing to look into.

I think the Fx-60s are going for much more than $190, and that's more than I wanted to spend on this.

Thanks

 

[rockyjohn]

The Opteron is essentially just the same as the X2 - it is just the pick of the litter and designated for server use. As such, it naturally perform just the same as the X2 in all applications, just might be a slight more stable and reliable.
Newegg has the Opteron 180 for $169. Not a bad deal considering that when they announced the end of the 939 chips I bought one for an upgrade - even though I wan't really ready then - just to make sure I did not get left out or squezzed by price increases. I paid $189 for the 170. So now for $20 less you get a processor that is about 20% faster.

 

[runswindows95]

I second the Opteron 180:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103582

 

[EXT64]

I'll switch my vote to that as well. Opty's are great, and at $169 new they are a steal.

 

[mike649]

All the help is awesome. So the Opteron 180 is better than the 4400 X2?

I dont think my motherboard supports the opteron 180, anyone able to verify?

http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=15&l3=228&l4=0&model=755&modelmenu=2

 

[blueeyesm]

I dont think my motherboard supports the opteron 180, anyone able to verify?

http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=15&l3=228&l4=0&model=755&modelmenu=2

You gotta track down the chipset wenbsite and look up its product, in this case the SiS 576.

http://www.sis.com/products/sis756_features.htm

Yes, its supposed to.

That doesn't mean Asus did not limit the BIOS to only detect Athlon X2.

 

[rolli59]

opteron 180 = 4800+ 2,4 Ghz

 

[rockyjohn]

All the help is awesome. So the Opteron 180 is better than the 4400 X2?

I dont think my motherboard supports the opteron 180, anyone able to verify?

The Opteron is 2.4Ghz compared to only 2.3Ghz for the 4400 X2. Oh yes, there is one difference between the Opteron and X2 I forgot to mention, the Opteron has a large L2 cache - 2 MB compared to only 1MB in 4400 X2. So there is a double advantage.

I believe that any mobo that is compatible with X2 will be compatible with this model of Opteron - but I don't know that for absolute fact. I have however seen many posts by people happy with Opteron (presumably on various mobos) and have not seen a single person identify any compatibility issues with the mobo. Maybe you could contact Asus to verify.

 

[rolli59]

x2 3600+ 2.0Ghz 2x 256kb cache
X2 3800+ 2.0Ghz 2x 512kb cache
X2 4200+ 2.2Ghz 2x 512kb cache
X2 4400+ 2.2Ghz 2x 1mb cache
X2 4600+ 2.4Ghz 2x 512kb cache
X2 4800+ 2.4Ghz 2x 1kb cache
FX60 2.6Ghz 2x 1mb cache
Opteron 165 1.8Ghz 2x 1mb cache
Opteron 170 2.0Ghz 2x 1mb cache
Opteron 175 2.2Ghz 2x 1mb cache
Opteron 180 2.4Ghz 2x 1mb cache
Opteron 185 2.6Ghz 2x 1mb cache
http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx?SLanguage=en-us&model=A8S-X
Useful information.

 

[sunny27]

i have an opteron 175@ 2.2ghz stock.its a dual core cpu and it overclocks well.i suggest u try it.

 

[sunny27]

@rolli
dont u think it should be 2x1MB not gb for the cache?
if it were gb -- intel would be where AMD is today.

 

[rolli59]

thanks for the correction should be kb an mb confused thinking one typing another one