<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 !!!
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$US more moeny. This is not a big deal on a full system. And this ensure a better upgradability.
-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green> <- <i>Is this affecting my credibility?</i>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
"S939 don't cost much more, you can get a S939 for less than 50$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 !!!
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.
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>
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
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 !!!
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>
<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>
A 3200+ 754 struggles to 2.4Ghz(from 2.2), while 3200+ 939 hits 2.6Ghz(from 2.0) easily.