Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

754 vs 939..some benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 14, 2004 1:24:56 PM

<A HREF="http://www.presence-pc.com/article-178.html" target="_new"> benchmark</A> between both socket. Interresting graphs, but in french..but pictures worth a thousand worlds thou...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

More about : 754 939 benchmarks

December 14, 2004 3:45:41 PM

First of all, I like how they did the game benchmark graphs. 2 resolutions on one graph. Looks good!

Second, I'm surprised that the sempron 3100+ held up so good. I guess they are better than I thought.

Finally, looks like the 939 has a slight advantage, but not enough to pay a lot more for it.

"A delayed game will eventually come out, a bad game is bad forever."
-Shigeru Miyamoto
December 14, 2004 6:16:48 PM

Quote:
Second, I'm surprised that the sempron 3100+ held up so good. I guess they are better than I thought.

The Sempron 3100+ has always been a very good CPU. It's an A64 2800+ minus the 64bit instruction a half the cache! Since all benchmarks run in 32bit and AMD architecture is less dependant on cache size. The Sempron 3100+ is a very good "high-end" low cost CPU.

Quote:
Finally, looks like the 939 has a slight advantage, but not enough to pay a lot more for it.

S939 don't cost much more, you can get a S939 for less than 50$US more moeny. This is not a big deal on a full system. And this ensure a better upgradability.

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green> <- <i>Is this affecting my credibility?</i>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 14, 2004 6:44:46 PM

The Winchester versions are worth the extra $$$ too.
December 14, 2004 7:09:51 PM

In gaming, it looks like the 754 3000+ outperforms the 939 3000+. This is the processor that I am interested in (from another thread).

The 939 wins in memory bandwidth due to the dual channels, but plain framerate, the 754 is a slightly better performer, due to the 200mhz advantage.


<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
December 14, 2004 8:37:33 PM

"S939 don't cost much more, you can get a S939 for less than 50$US more moeny. This is not a big deal on a full system. And this ensure a better upgradability."

Upgradability...from upgrade: to rise to today's standard,...

In 2 years, will you upgrade your motherboard only to newer standard keeping you then "slow" 939 ou 754 CPU or you will either sell the CPU/mobo/ram and buy like a newer board with that new dualcore cpu and DDR2?

Rather buy the best your money can afford now without thinking about future. if you budget allow a socket 754 3200+ or a 3000+ 939, then go with the 754 3200+. That 50$ more that you could spend for a faster 939...why not on a 3400+ 754...it outperform the 3500+, meaning that you could even push your next upgrade for later.

I dont bash socket 939. if youre ready to spend money and choose, let say, 3500+ 939, well, I'm not sure it is wise. But, if yo say, well, I'll go with a 3800+ then you'll aready have the nice CPU for your next upgrade (note that I said the "nice" and not the good or very good..). OTOH, if you say... well, I need a cool CPU because I want to have fun with overclocking so I dont care about future 'cause I may have blowed out my new board or cpu in 3 month or well, The only motherboard available in my region that have the features I need is only 939, then ..why not.

I've been building computer for me and for other for more than 10 years. I remember when my new 386dx with 4 megs RAM and 40 gigs HDD was hot... From there, I've never upgraded a single part of computer. from new memory to ata 66 to newer socket to newer onboard feature, everytime I was ready to upgrade..I sold the old stuff in a new computer case and got the latest. I felt that I had more for my money, even if I ended to spend more than expected because the whole thing was faster. my old HDD was not slowing dont the whole thing nor my old CPU on my new mobo or my new cpu with my other old stuff. I dont judge the performance of a computer simply by checking how fast is the cpu...or that new ram. My question is : Is this whole system respond fast enough when I'm playing or working on so my money was well spent?

At the end, upgradability might be a good arguement to get the budget for that more expensive parts (yes, I already told my parents to buy me that part because it will last more longer that the cheaper one...) but it my not give you the best for your money now.


-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
December 14, 2004 8:43:42 PM

Quote:
386dx with 4 megs RAM and 40 gigs HDD

Hope you mean 40Meg hard drive :evil: 

But weren't those WD drives awesome back then... lol

Mike.
December 14, 2004 10:09:05 PM

Well for me the 939 decision came from the overclocking:D  A 3200+ 754 struggles to 2.4Ghz(from 2.2), while 3200+ 939 hits 2.6Ghz(from 2.0) easily.
December 14, 2004 10:16:49 PM

In what rating does s939 have the advantage? From what I saw, the s754 3000+ and the s754 3200+ beat thier s939 counterparts in almost every application.
December 15, 2004 12:45:28 AM

AMD wants us to think that dual channel memory controller can compensate performance loss caused by 9%-10% less clock speed or worth 300+ to 400+ extra PR points. But it's not true.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
December 15, 2004 1:16:56 AM

yes..that was megs...soooooo long ago! I think that it was maxtor or quantum...even had an ALPS...

Compared to floppy I once used on an old 8088 and my cousin 286 16 MHz with an amazing 1 megs of memory...a hDD was awesome, no matter the brand!

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
December 15, 2004 5:51:01 AM

is it me or did it seem that the 754 3200+ was rivaling the 3500 and occasioanlly winning? why is that?

Current Spec: AMD Athlon XP2000+, GeForce4 MX440, 256MB DDR, aOpen Mobo.
Specs By End OF November: AMD Athlon64 3200+, Asus X800XT, 1536MB DDR400, Asus A8N-E-Deluxe
December 15, 2004 11:38:23 AM

both run @ 2.2GHz and have the same amount of cache. But, since it has dual channel memory, that create more latency than single channel one, that slowing down the cpu a bit.

memory bandwith for 3200+ 754 is 2949 Mb/s, which is 92% of the 3200 Mb/s. 3500+ is 5595 Mb/s, 87% of the 6400 Mo/s.

Maybe with some apps, that can apply for something.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
December 15, 2004 2:17:12 PM

some games like memory bandwidth, like quake3 for example, so it could be more beneifial in some circumstances to have the extra bandwidth over the extra 200mhz core clocks
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
December 15, 2004 2:51:38 PM

These cases are usually tie, because it's very hard to overcome 10% clock speed loss.

And special circumstances doesn't justfy a generalized PR boost.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
December 16, 2004 11:23:48 AM

<font color=blue>"I remember when my new 386dx with 4 megs RAM and 40 gigs HDD was hot..."</font color=blue>

That's as far back as you go?

Not to date myself, but I remember when my upgrade from a cassette recorder to a 5 1/4" single sided single density (90k) floppy disk drive was the most incredible thing to happen to computers. That was my 1978 TRS-80 of course!

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
December 16, 2004 12:06:49 PM

My first computer, my Commodore VIC 20 had a casette recorder (datasette) to store data...that 386 was the first one that I actually assemble.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
December 16, 2004 1:51:47 PM

That's about my era too... :) 

I still have my C64 with floppies in the garage. But that was my 2nd C64 - broke the first one (with cassette) somehow.

Mike.
December 16, 2004 4:44:46 PM

I think we got side-tracked with this thread a little, but even though I am biased (being the proud owner of a s939 3200+) I still like that they will be continued in the future and that my system will continue to be upgradable. I was scared to buy a s754 knowing that in a few years I might want to upgrade. For me the costs were very comparable and it was well worth taking the slight performance hit.
December 16, 2004 5:45:30 PM

Quote:
Not to date myself, but I remember when my upgrade from a cassette recorder to a 5 1/4" single sided single density (90k) floppy disk drive was the most incredible thing to happen to computers. That was my 1978 TRS-80 of course!

Wow. Same here, but with a C=64.

Then later, when I got into high school, I finally got that massive upgrade to 640KB of RAM for my Tandy. :o  (It still had no hard drive though.)

Then one day I got a new PC with it's speedy 4x CD ROM and I remember how superior I felt to those schmucks with single speed CD drives!

At least I've never programmed on paper cards. :\

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
December 16, 2004 5:47:10 PM

Quote:
by the time you upgrade your cpu youll probably be upgrading your mobo anyways

I have to agree. :\ It works out that way for me every time. New CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new video, new HD...

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
December 16, 2004 5:54:18 PM

Wow, I'm surprised to hear that you guys upgrade all of that at once?? Is that really an "upgrade"?? Or just a "new" system?? I have, at least twice, upgraded my mobo without upgrading my CPU, and vice versa. I try to add 1 or 2 things a year to keep my system up to date, or as close as I can.
December 16, 2004 6:37:21 PM

Quote:
Wow, I'm surprised to hear that you guys upgrade all of that at once?? Is that really an "upgrade"?? Or just a "new" system?? I have, at least twice, upgraded my mobo without upgrading my CPU, and vice versa. I try to add 1 or 2 things a year to keep my system up to date, or as close as I can.

A new system <i>is</i> an upgrade, especially if you build it yourself. :)  Seriously though, any time that I've ever ugpraded my CPU I've also upgraded my mobo, usually building a new system in the process. That's not to say that I haven't upgraded RAM, HD, video, CD/DVD ROM, CD/DVD burner, etc. from time to time without upgrading the CPU. It's just to say that any time that I've upgraded the CPU, I've built a new system doing it because the old system was just too oudated to support a CPU worth its money. Plus you get all new features <i>and</i> get to keep a working backup PC for entertainment or sale to recover upgrade costs.

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
December 16, 2004 6:48:58 PM

What if you spend a bit more for your system now, so you wont have to upgrade parts from time to time and push your next upgradea bit further in time to save more money in order to upgrade to better performing parts. So, this way you always have good performing computer now and as long as you need it as opposed to adequate performing all the time.

Socket 754 give you more choice for motherboard at all range of price. for 50$ less, or even more, you can have a 754 system that outperform socket 939. from this point, that 50 or more $ can be better spent on a fast videocard to increase the performance lead even more. That performance edge you have now will make you keep your system longer.

IMHO, 939 with dual channel is just marketing because Intel has it. Fact is, because of Intel CPU desing, they really need bandwidth. Not AMD...But Intel has it. So we will have it too.

That wont be the same when dual core CPU will be there. That will take bandwidth ... like DDR2 667 will be able to give. That will take new mobo too... So, what will you do? Put a FX-5x CPU to keep your system up to date on that old mobo? Put your current cpu on a new DDR2 mobo, even if it wont run significantly faster? that is wasted money imho. Sell your current system and get a new one up to date, even if you have to wait a bit more( when you wait, you save money and price go down...) to get the extra money.

All the reason but futureproff are good to justify an upgrade.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
December 16, 2004 7:53:38 PM

Alright, I will agree with all of that. I guess the way that pat has presented this point is very valid. I am really just trying to justify why I just bought a 939?? Hmmmm... I guess I will have to search harder for the answer to this question which is now going to haunt my dreams. Although, I have upgraded my CPU without upgrading my mobo, which is possible and I'm surprised that more of you have not ever done this... I like keeping all of my parts that I have floating around compatible with eachother, so that I can mix and match in my old systems as well, and keep them as up to date as possible with my old parts. So for me in this way it might be nice in the future, as I don't sell my old systems to make back the cash on my upgrades (I use them as paperweights).
December 17, 2004 1:09:38 AM

I've used a VIC-20 (cassette recorder), C64 (floppy), Amiga 500 (floppy), Amiga 1200 (80 megs HDD), 386 dx 40 (hdd 850 megs), 486 dx4 100 (850 megs + first CDROM(nec 4x4X)), Amiga4000(4.3 Gigs SCSI HDD and CDROM (40X)), AXP 1700+,(40 Gigs then another 40gigs for RAID0 (80 Gigs total +cd rw) AXP2500+(2x120 Gigs RAID0(240 gigs total)+cd rw and dvd rw) and now, A64 3000+
with 2 160 Gigs in RAID0 with a 40Gigs and and external 120 Gigs +cd rw and dvd rw...

I used the 386 and 486 with my A1200 because sometime, I needed something "compatible" and faster. I put my A4000 to rest in 2001, and then got my AXP1700+. The A4000, even with a Motorola 68060 50 MHz and 80 megs of RAM and 4.3 gigs SCSI HDD, met its match with mpeg video files... too much data to process for realtime playing and for flash content in WEB sites.

I miss it sometime. The OS (AmigaOS) was stable, responsive and simple. It was multitasking way better than Windows.

But good thing always come to an end.. But that was quite fun to remember all that!

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
December 17, 2004 12:01:56 PM

Yeah, I miss the Amigas. :(  They were so much better than PCs in so many ways in their day. I suppose it's a good example of bad marketing of a superior product. (Kind of like AMD actually.)

Oh, and did I mention that my Tandy had an 80088 processor? **ROFL** It wasn't even an x86. It was fun to jump from that Tandy to a Pentium 90MHz, even if that <i>was</i> a Packard Hell box.

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
December 17, 2004 12:06:47 PM

<font color=blue>"At least I've never programmed on paper cards. :\"</font color=blue>

Guilty. I have programmed on cards, had to use cards as output from one computer and input for another. I have also programmed with WIRE PLUG PANELS. What a joy!

My top 10 major upgrade milestones:

1. Going from single sided single density 5 1/4 floppies (90k) to dual density (180k).

2. Getting a SECOND 5 1/4" floppy drive for my TRS-80.

3. Going from single sided floppies to dual sided (360k).

4. PRINTERS! My first printer was a Radio Shack 9 pin printer, must have been close to $1000. But to be able to print at home and replace the typewriter, what a concept!

5. MS-DOS. My first IBM Compatible PC was in 1982, by a company called STEARNS. It featured an 8086 rather then the 8088 used by IBM. I always prefered my TRS-80 operating system (LDOS, NEWDOS) to MS-DOS.

6. Color monitor. Ok, only 4 colors, but WOW!

7. First hard drive - 5 meg.

8. Next hard drive - 10 meg. How would I ever need more?

9. Mouse. Sounds nutty, but the mouse was an incredible upgrade ($89.00), and not many DOS applications supported a mouse at that time.

10. Modem (1200 baud). Opened a whole new world of Bulletin boards and monster phone bills.

Of course, there are many more. But in my world, those are the top 10.


<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
December 17, 2004 12:48:33 PM

Quote:
10. Modem (1200 baud). Opened a whole new world of Bulletin boards and monster phone bills.

**ROFL** Oh yeah. I remember those days. I even remember having a list of boards that would let you reroute to another BBS (and the coveted toll-free BBS that would reroute) so that I could try to cut down that phone bill. I actually kind of miss those days. I don't miss the phone bills though.

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
December 18, 2004 1:48:17 AM

Pat,

The benchmarks on the French site are comparing the .13 process 754 3000+ against the .09 process 939 3000+.

I just got my 754 3000+, and it is built on the .09 process. So, the newer socket 754 3000+ processors benefit from the die shrink as well, and gain 200mhz to boot.

It would be interesting to compare the .09 754 against the 939.


<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
December 18, 2004 3:33:18 AM

Are you sure it's 90 nanos? Sandra says my s754 3200+ is as well, but its 4 months old, so I know she's wrong again. I had heard that 90 nanos for 754 were still 6 months away.
December 20, 2004 2:03:48 AM

Not sure. Sandra says .09, CPU-Z says .13. Maybe its really .11 :) 

I will ask AMD support if there is any way to know, without having to remove the HSF.


<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
December 20, 2004 2:55:24 AM

Phial, your link contains a Trojan horse. [you(1).js

Maybe you think it's funny to infect others? Or is it an accident?

<font color=green><b><i>Lizards</font color=green></b> do <b>not</b> taste like <b><font color=yellow>chicken</font color=yellow></b>,<b> <font color=yellow>chicken</font color=yellow></b> tastes like <font color=green><b>lizard.</b></font color=green></i>
December 20, 2004 2:56:00 AM

Too bad, Z is usually right, sysy is usually wrong. I had hopes of getting a 90 nano chip, and one of the new Abit nforce boards, I want to try the board out.
December 20, 2004 3:15:33 AM

is your 3000+ .09 is still running a 2GHz or they lowered the clock as they did on 939? mine is a .13 at 2.0 ghz

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
December 20, 2004 7:12:58 PM

Pat,

My 754 3000+ must be a .13 process, based on its vcore voltage of 1.5v. The .09 would be 1.4v.

Shame on Sisoft for reporting the wrong process!

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
December 21, 2004 1:48:51 AM

The "Trojan Horse" from Phial's sig is practically harmless. If it could run, then it would only throw your IE window around the screen few times, nothing else.

I think it got labeled as malware for it's annoyance factor. But if you use Mozilla Firefox, these scripts can never run.


------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
!