Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

940 vs. 955

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2010 4:03:22 PM

Would it be wise for me to upgrade to the 955BE over the 940BE? What would be the advantages :hello:  ?

More about : 940 955

a c 133 à CPUs
May 30, 2010 4:22:52 PM

No.

If you do not overclock, there is only a 200MHz difference. Certainly not worth any price increase. If you are considering upgrading from your current CPU because you are interested in better performance, 200MHz will not provide a significant enough difference.

If you overclock, it is still not worth it. The 955BE C3 stepping might provide some increase in overclocking ability, but it also might not.

The advantage that the 955BE has over the 940BE, assuming that the 955BE is C3 stepping are as follows:
-0.2GHz higher stock clock
-C3 stepping allows slightly lower voltages to achieve same clocks.
-955 will work in AM3 socket (the 940BE is AM2+ exclusive)
-Those are the only significant differences, you can check out more and more details here:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X4%...(HDZ940XCGIBOX).html
and
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X4%...(HDZ955FBGMBOX).html

You have an AM2+ platform with DDR2 memory and one of the most powerful processors for that socket. If you are unhappy with your current system and want noticeably better performance, you have 3 options:
1. Overclock
2. Purchase a completely new system. For this, I recommend waiting until the intel sandy bridge CPUs and AMD Zambezi come out next year.
3. Tell us more about your current system and uses; perhaps something else is holding you back.

Anyway, above is just if you want more help. My answer for you is no, the upgrade is definitely not worth it under most, if not all, circumstances.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2010 4:36:50 PM

I am very happy with the 940, I already have it clocked up 600 MHz...I was thinking that the 955BE would give me more headroom to OC...I am just a speed freak on a budget, lol. My current rig is the most powerful, and stable rig I have ever built...Just looking for more speed, Kinda like Captain Kirk.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2010 4:41:09 PM

I guess I will wait til this coming feb. for my annual computer build to upgrade to 6-core, 5XXX series card, DDR3, etc. . Thanks for the input ENZO.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
May 30, 2010 5:31:54 PM

Honestly, I'm perfectly happy with my Phenom II X4 940. I think it's the best thing I could have bought at the time. Of course, the reasoning was that I got a really good deal on my MSI K9A2 Platinum Motherboard and I got 8GB of OCZ Reaper PC6400 DDR2-800MHz RAM for only $80. That was about a year ago of course when DDR2 was cheap as dirt. Nevertheless, I'm much happier with what I have, especially considering that I'll still be able to drop a 6-Core right onto my mobo and still be able to use my 8GB of RAM. There's very little difference between the two CPUs (AM3 support being the big exception) but as I said, I have 8GB of DDR2 and I'll most likely use that RAM until it becomes unusable. Since hard drives are the bottleneck of any system, the speed difference once you're up in the high ranges like with the 940 depends a lot more on whether you have an HD or SSD and your GPU than it does on what CPU you have. The 940 still shines and that's the reason it made such a big noise when AMD released it. They knew it would be good for a long time, regardless of what RAM it supports. It's essentially a Core 2 Quad Q9400 and if AMD or VIA ever come up with a northbridge that allows an AM2/AM@+ CPU to use DDR3, then we'll really be laughing. As it currently stands for gaming and most applications, all quad-core CPUs are still ahead of the curve and will be for some time. In addition to that, 3.0GHz is nothing to sneeze at as most CPUs can't even match that clock speed. Keep things in perspective like that and you'll save yourself a ton of cash. I think that buying a 955 would leave you poorer and very disappointed in your computers all-around performance difference. (i.e. - You won't notice one.) :sol: 
Share
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2010 6:05:34 PM

Thanks for the advice both are the best answer...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2010 6:48:49 PM

Glad to be of service! :sol: 
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
May 30, 2010 8:53:50 PM

Avro Arrow said:
if AMD or VIA ever come up with a northbridge that allows an AM2/AM@+ CPU to use DDR3, then we'll really be laughing.

So, we'll be crying. Because then only AM3 CPUs would work in it. When AMD moved to socket AM2, the memory controller was removed from the motherboard and integrated into the CPU. Therefore, unless a CPU is AM3, it does not have a DDR3 controller and will never work with DDR3. The AM3 CPUs have both a DDR2 and DDR3 controller integrated into the die. Hence why they were able to make it compatible with the older AM2 and AM2+ sockets. Intel began doing this themselves with their new core i7/i5/i3 processors.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2010 9:06:02 PM

enzo matrix said:
So, we'll be crying. Because then only AM3 CPUs would work in it. When AMD moved to socket AM2, the memory controller was removed from the motherboard and integrated into the CPU. Therefore, unless a CPU is AM3, it does not have a DDR3 controller and will never work with DDR3. The AM3 CPUs have both a DDR2 and DDR3 controller integrated into the die. Hence why they were able to make it compatible with the older AM2 and AM2+ sockets. Intel began doing this themselves with their new core i7/i5/i3 processors.


I'm referring to a chipset that would adapt the DDR3 format to DDR2 so that an AM2/AM2+ CPU could use it. I've seen weirder things done like PCI-Express and AGP on the same board before. This would be application specific. You seem to forget that in PC design, almost anything is possible and adapting DDR3 to DDR2 wouldn't be that hard. VIA did it with DDR1 and DDR2 after all. So no, we won't be crying. :sol: 
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
May 31, 2010 12:26:51 AM

Avro Arrow said:
I'm referring to a chipset that would adapt the DDR3 format to DDR2 so that an AM2/AM2+ CPU could use it. I've seen weirder things done like PCI-Express and AGP on the same board before. This would be application specific. You seem to forget that in PC design, almost anything is possible and adapting DDR3 to DDR2 wouldn't be that hard. VIA did it with DDR1 and DDR2 after all. So no, we won't be crying. :sol: 

Perhaps not. But the circuitry needed to make it compatible would take up a bit more space and I can't see how they could do it without delaying data transfers.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2010 3:00:31 AM

You're right, it probably would increase latency and not give any boost in performance. As I said though, I have 8GB already. It's going to be a LONG time before I need more than that. :sol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2010 3:57:36 PM

Best answer selected by lowjack989.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2010 1:57:45 AM

Thanks for choosing my answer! It's much appreciated! :D  :sol: 
m
0
l