Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

processor&motherboard

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Desktops
  • Processors
  • Motherboards
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 23, 2005 3:46:19 AM

Which is better in series of AMD processors for a desktop PC and which motherboard for that processor is considered to be the best ( high resol. graphics support )

More about : processor motherboard

February 23, 2005 5:58:00 AM

If you don't care for upgrades but plain performance for your money that would be a Athlon 3400+ on S754 with an nForce mobo from Abit/DFI/Asus.
Related resources
February 23, 2005 5:56:28 PM

Amd Athlon 64 3800+ socket 939 together with a Msi K8N-Neo2 Nforce 3 is a very very good combination. much faster than the socket 754.
February 23, 2005 8:32:24 PM

"much faster than the socket 754."

The 3400+ 754 is clocked at 2.4 GHz. The 3800+ 939, 2.4 GHz. The only difference is dual channel.And dual channel only give about 5 to 7 % speed increase. So I wont say it is much faster...but too much expensive for the difference...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
February 23, 2005 11:17:32 PM

Definitely not faster than the 754 3700.

<b><i>Powered by <font color=blue>V</font color=blue><font color=purple>E</font color=purple><font color=red>R</font color=red><font color=purple>T</font color=purple><font color=blue>O</font color=blue></b>
Fueled by <b><font color=blue>CL-</font color=blue><font color=red>ONE</font color=red></b>
February 24, 2005 12:26:25 AM

Exact. Anyway, I will soon see the difference between socket 939 and 754. I just sold my good Soltek socket 754 nforce3 board with my 3000+ to my friend in need of a better computer and got a Gigabyte k8nf-9 nforce4 board with a 3000+ 939. a 200 MHz drop to my 754 config... I got a x600xt VIVO PCIe to replace my AIW 9600xt. I suspect the x600 to be a bit faster. Maybe the gain from the x600 will compensate for the MHz loss. But I doubt that it will be as fast in other stuff.

My 754 config was rock stable, fast and doing everything I needed ... why did I upgrade??? Dont know... Anyway, I could alway get something else if it is not up to my expectation...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
February 24, 2005 6:08:27 AM

There is no such cpu as Amd Athlon 64 3400+ clocked at 2400Mhz! the 3400+ is at 2200Mhz. the 2400Mhz start at 3700+ models and up. I tell you if you dont have experience with dealing with the socket 939 then dont talk about it :) 

Peace & Love
February 24, 2005 6:14:09 AM

And you talk about stability like a rock, i have such stability with my current system which is:

Amd Athlon Xp 2800+
Msi K7N2 Delta2
Kingston 1.5 GB PC 3200 ram
2x 120GB Maxtor diamondmax working on Sata Raid 0 stripe set configuration.
Leadtek Nvidia Geforce 6800 GT (AGP 8x)

in 1 week transitioning to Msi K8N-NEO2 with Amd Athlon 64 3800+ with 2GB OCZ dual channel 400mhz ram
February 24, 2005 10:16:00 AM

Hummmmmmm. I guess that you just had a look at Endyen's link... So who don't know about and who should not talk about it???

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 24, 2005 10:59:45 AM

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,..." target="_new"> Here </A> is another reason to think about socket 939 :smile:

<font color=green> Woohoo!! I am officially a <b> Member </b>!! </font color=green>
February 25, 2005 8:46:18 AM

silly judgments.

socket 939 is way faster and more powerful in multitasking with hardcore stability.
February 25, 2005 11:54:57 AM

Quote:
There is no such cpu as Amd Athlon 64 3400+ clocked at 2400Mhz! the 3400+ is at 2200Mhz. the 2400Mhz start at 3700+ models and up. I tell you if you dont have experience with dealing with the socket 939 then dont talk about it :) 

ummmm...dont mean to make u feel like an idiot but remember when AMD changed from clawhammer to newcastle and the 3200+ went from 2.0 to 2.2? What do u think the 2.2 3400+ got changed to? I'll leave u with that thought.
February 25, 2005 12:00:43 PM

Lightspeed wtf are you on man? The diff between 939 and 754 is almost nothing performance-wise. And for your imformation the 3400+ on 754 outperforms the 3500+ on 939. Go figure eh?
February 25, 2005 12:45:14 PM

The reality is 2.4 GHz 3400+ has been avaiable since early 2004. You'll find dozens of reviews of this CPU around the web.

Practially it's almost as fast as A64 3800+. S939 has no multitasking or stability advantage over S754

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 25, 2005 7:58:42 PM

What's the main reason to go with socket 939? OC potential, dual core cpu (eventually?), and PCI express correct?

<font color=green> Woohoo!! I am officially a <b> Member </b>!! </font color=green>
February 26, 2005 1:56:25 AM

Quote:
Actually it does in terms of how it handles memory.

Tell that to chipdeath wiil ya.
February 26, 2005 2:17:15 AM

Chipdeath is having some problems with ram, on his 939 board.
February 26, 2005 7:10:18 AM

allrite, say what you want to say. How can old tech be faster than new tech?
i will post my benchmarks when i get the new system (without O/C).

Peace
February 26, 2005 6:32:03 PM

"How can old tech be faster than new tech?"


This is not old tech vs new tech, it is the same tech, just differantly integrated. one is single channel and the other is dual channel. that is only the memory controller, that is different, this is the same cpu core inside.

I suggest you to read about AMD CPU, so you will better understand what I mean here.

Now I quit this useless thread.



-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2005 9:18:24 PM

*mumbling*
Can't believe I read the entire thread...knucklehead needs to read before he posts...

__________________________________________________
:tongue: <font color=red>Have you read the FAQ? Searched for other posts on this topic?</font color=red>
!