Althon64 754 or 939 faster?

[Rottie]

I read somewhere about Althon 64 3400+ 754 runs at 2.24 Ghz and Althon64 3500+ 939 (that one I plans to buy) runs at 2.2 Ghz so which one is faster?

 

[d2arcturus]

Matters which CPU you get. 939 = 90nm and dual core.

 

[forumposter32]

No, it's 2.4 GHz with 512k cache or 2.2 GHz with 1MB cache. (3400+ for socket 754)
Yes, it can beat the 3500+ socket 939.

However, it does depend which benchmarks you look at. The price/performance comparisons change all the time and lately I'd say that the socket 939 3700+ is a pretty good deal. But, a couple of weeks ago, I bought a socket 754 3700+ because there was an insane sale going on. There was a motherboard & CPU combo on Tigerdirect.ca for $209 CDN after $90 CDN rebates. I just sent away for the rebates and I put the Asus K8V SE Deluxe on eBay. So, if I sell the mobo for $50 CDN, my overall cost after shipping etc will be around $230 CDN. I was going to bring that with me to build another computer when I move to another province.

Anyway, some benchmarks (click on the games):
http://www23.tomshardware.com

EDIT: I just wanted to add that the deal I got actually went up in price by $132 CDN only a few days after I got it. LOL, I think they had made a mistake. I checked out the price on Tigerdirect.com and it was $209 US. With the exchange rate, it's usually higher in CDN $.

 

[fire400]

I would personally go with a 939 if you're starting from scratch. But I mean, if you already have a 754, you probably want to stick with 754-related hardware.

754 is becoming stone age like the Prescot series from Intel. 939 just supports more stuff, and you'll figure, 'cuz Monarch barely offers configuration builds with a 754, let alone what 754's it has to offer.

939 is more advanced, but speedwise, you'll always get a more expensive 754 CPU to outweigh a slightly less expensive 939, like someone stated earlier.

 

[forumposter32]

Originally posted by: fire400
I would personally go with a 939 if you're starting from scratch. But I mean, if you already have a 754, you probably want to stick with 754-related hardware.

754 is becoming stone age like the Prescot series from Intel. 939 just supports more stuff, and you'll figure, 'cuz Monarch barely offers configuration builds with a 754, let alone what 754's it has to offer.

939 is more advanced, but speedwise, you'll always get a more expensive 754 CPU to outweigh a slightly less expensive 939, like someone stated earlier.

No, if you would have watched what e-retailers are selling, you would have noticed that they introduced all kinds of new Semprons for socket 754 when they announced officially that the socket A CPUs were no longer made. As a matter of fact, there's a Sempron 3700+ on the roadmap for next year for socket 754. Socket 754 is mainly the budget line for AMD especially since they stopped making the 3700+ for socket 754.

Keep in mind that socket 939 can accommodate a dual core, but socket M2 coming out next year will be able to support a quad core as well (and DDR2 RAM). However, by the time quad cores come out, an even newer platform supporting DDR3 will come out.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: d2arcturus
Matters which CPU you get. 939 = 90nm and dual core.

90nm yes. Dual core, not for near the ~$200 of the 3500+.

Originally posted by: forumposter32
No, it's 2.4 GHz with 512k cache or 2.2 GHz with 1MB cache. (3400+ for socket 754)
Yes, it can beat the 3500+ socket 939.

However, it does depend which benchmarks you look at. The price/performance comparisons change all the time and lately I'd say that the socket 939 3700+ is a pretty good deal.

Mistake there, the OP stated socket 939 3500+.

Socket 754 3400+ (recent ones) are Newcastle cores with 512k cache running at 2.4GHz using the 130nm process.

Socket 939 3500+ (recent ones) are Venice cores with 512k cache running at 2.2GHz using the 90nm process.

Pure speed at stock? 3400+ wins. Lower temperatures? 3500+ wins. Overclocked? 3500+ wins, typically getting higher ultimate clocks than 3400+ thus overcoming the shortfall of lower initial clock speed. Cost? Last time I saw one for sale, the 3400+ was about $130 while the cheapest OEM 3500+ is $190. Motherboards are at least 10% cheaper for socket 754.

Originally posted by: fire400
I would personally go with a 939 if you're starting from scratch. But I mean, if you already have a 754, you probably want to stick with 754-related hardware.

939 is more advanced, but speedwise, you'll always get a more expensive 754 CPU to outweigh a slightly less expensive 939, like someone stated earlier.

I agree for the most part with the first statement, but the second statement is just plain false. Traditionally AMD has priced the same "rated" CPU at the same price, so a 3000+ would cost the same regardless of whether it was a 2.0GHz socket 754 or a 1.8GHz socket 939... but the socket 754 version would be faster in most but not all benchmarks thanks to the higher clock speed. The benchmarks it loses are anything that likes higher RAM speed.

Recently, about when the socket 754 A64 started being phased out, there were some KILLER deals on those CPUs. ClubIT had the 3400+ retail box for $130 and Ewiz had the OEM 3700+ for $161. Tell me what the lowest cost socket 939 CPU is with 1MB cache and 2.4GHz true clock speed? Can you get one for $161? Well, alas now you cannot even with socket 754. Too bad.

Still, the 90nm socket 939 chips overclock nicer so they do end up faster when overclocked and thus needing more expensive motherboards (nominally). The funny thing is that not everyone overclocks. Don't know if anyone 'round here realizes that. Thus, for a while socket 754 was a very viable alternative to socket 939.

Today, the situation is different.

With higher end socket 754 chip supplies drying up, for the non-overclocker this actually makes the decision easier - one based purely on budget, real upgradability capability (not theoretical "but you can if you want to" but more of "I know and already plan to") and needs (if you already know you need dual core), not some theoretical "is this 3000+ better than that 3000+?" It now becomes, "if you cannot afford the extra $50-100 get socket 754 Sempron, if you can, get socket 939 A64."

The truth of the matter is that you can purchase a socket 754 CPU for $60, plus you can occasionally purchase a socket 754 CPU with motherboard for $70. I did just that last week, getting a Sempron 2600+ with an ECS NFORCE3-A motherboard. Easy overclock (change memory to 5/6, system clock to 250MHz, nothing else) to a Sempron 3300+ equivalent 2GHz. Cheapest socket 939 CPU? Around the $140 range. Cheapest Fry's CPU/mobo combo would be around $160. Platform support is quite good as indicated by available socket 754 motherboards.

Very overclockable Nforce3 with AGP - $50 Epox
Somewhat overclockable Geforce6100 with PCIe, IGP and mATX - $60 Biostar
Very overclockable Nforce4 with PCIe - $70 Abit or $75 DFI
Very overclockable Nforce4 with SLI - $100 Epox

Note that there are many overclockable motherboards available. The socket 754 A64 CPUs were 130nm chips that probably averaged 2.5GHz with the latest Newcastle cores. The 90nm socket 939 CPUs probably average higher. What happens when you have a 90nm socket 754 CPU? That's exactly what all the current Semprons are. There are already reports of maximum stable speeds of 2.7-2.8GHz with system bus speeds of 330+MHz. We're seeing overclocks being limited by motherboard (though 330MHz system bus is nothing to sneer at) and by the low multiplier of the Semprons. Still, even a $70 Sempron can probably hit 2.4GHz true clock on the $50 Epox board, making for a very "value" system.

Seriously, people think fondly back to the days of the Celeron 300A and the performance value it represented while overclocked, and disregarded the faster P2 chips of the time. These days people are going after the expensive chips and disregarding the cheap performance value of the Semprons. Along with people paying $1500 to be able to run 7800GTX 512MB cards in SLI and paying $5000 on Ebay for the Xbox 3600!!! Did everyone become wealthy while I was busy overclocking my $40 mobile Celeron/P4 chips? :roll:

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: forumposter32
As a matter of fact, there's a Sempron 3700+ on the roadmap for next year for socket 754. Socket 754 is mainly the budget line for AMD especially since they stopped making the 3700+ for socket 754.

Keep in mind that socket 939 can accommodate a dual core, but socket M2 coming out next year will be able to support a quad core as well (and DDR2 RAM).

:Q Cheap Semprons with higher multiplier? ROCK!

I've said it before around here and I'll say it again. As long as socket 939 does not have an under $100 CPU on the open market, socket 754 will still be around.

I do look forward to socket M2... ever since seeing the selling price of DDR2 undercutting DDR.

 

[forumposter32]

Zap, I know there are two socket 754 3400+.

I just found one that is kind of peculiar, a socket 939 3400+. This one was cancelled I believe but still exists in some places. Here, it's sold by Tigerdirect.ca in a mobo/CPU combo:
http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/...item-details.asp?EdpNo=1087917&CatId=0

 

[obeseotron]

Grab the socket 939 one. It will be slightly faster and has a much longer upgrade path.

Depending on the benchmark the dual channel memory controller and 1mb cache are worth the equivilant of about 100Mhz of extra performance each vs single channel or 512k chips.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: forumposter32
I just found one that is kind of peculiar, a socket 939 3400+

I think that was the initial 130nm Hammer core with ½ cache disabled. Perhaps someone can correct me if wrong. In any case, this is an example of how in some cases AMD's CPU rating is skewed. The same GHz CPU with the same socket and cache went from being a 3400+ to a 3500+. Also, the difference between socket 754 and 939 is a linear 200+ points until the CPU hits 2.2GHz, and then it magically becomes 300+ points?

Originally posted by: obeseotron
Grab the socket 939 one. It will be slightly faster and has a much longer upgrade path.

*SIGH* I thought I had just explained it.

If you have the budget and you have no legacy parts to keep, then get socket 939.

If you do not have the budget, or you do have legacy parts that you need to re-use (such as you already have mobo or already have CPU) then it is perfectly fine to get socket 754.

"Slightly faster" means just that at the same true MHz. Problem is that the 3000+ CPU in socket 754 is 200MHz faster than the same rated chip in socket 939, so if you're buying based on the + rating system (and AMD prices the CPUs that way) then based on what you say below the socket 754 CPU is actually slightly faster.

"Upgrade path" is meaningless to most people for the following reasons: Many people end up buying a new motherboard for a new CPU anyways (various reasons - to trickle down CPU to older system, to build used system for relative, to take advantage of newer motherboard technology, etc.). Also, many people do not have definate upgrade plans meaning the difference between "I'll get this one because it is upgradeable in the future" versus "I'll get this one because I already plan to upgrade in six months." Socket M2 is coming out - did anyone know this? If socket 754 instantly became obsolete when socket 939 showed up as some people claim, the same people will claim socket 939 just became instantly and magically obsolete when socket M2 comes out. That's a load of bull. Finally, let's ask the early adoptors of socket 939 some questions such as, "Did you change motherboards when you upgraded CPUs to take advantage of PCIe which wasn't available earlier" and "Did you change motherboards when you upgraded CPUs to take advantage of SLI?" Yes, there are people who really do upgrade just their CPU, but don't assume everyone actually does that.

Originally posted by: obeseotron
Depending on the benchmark the dual channel memory controller and 1mb cache are worth the equivilant of about 100Mhz of extra performance each vs single channel or 512k chips.

Assuming your numbers are correct (and they may as well be) then AMD is definately overinflating their CPU speed ratings. According to AMD the 2.2GHz chip gained 300MHz from dual channel and the 2.4GHz s754 chip gained 300MHz from 1MB cache.

 

[Rottie]

now that is hard choice. I think I might go with 939 cuz I might want to overclock it I never have done it myself. I can't risk damage cpu.