Anyone running a modern AM2 rig?

[Liberator21]

Well I never had a 939 system, but I did have a 754 lol. As you can probably imagine, there was a big increase in performance.

 

[Texun]

I've used AMD's for years and a few months ago opted to replace my solid FX-55 socket 939 for an X2-5600. The new AM2 isn't tuned as well but in all honesty I can't blame the board -yet. I am using the same XP OS with a different board, chipset, hard drive (cloned over with Acronis), memory, and sound card. I need to dump it and do a clean install for the comparison to be fair. It's stable other than a few driver issues now and then on start up which I will take the blame for until I flush the drive and start over. I was actually surprised to find it would work as well as it does.

Even with the buggered OS it still runs fine and I haven't noticed any speed increase under normal use. The real difference for me came when I did my usual weekly encoding of TV shows. What once took 95 minutes or more with the single core 55 now takes about 54 minutes with the X2-5600. It can vary +/- by a few minutes depending on the actual file size but that's a close comparison.

The reason I went with AMD was the price and the fact that I don't overclock. I'm not knocking those who do but I'm not that good at gaming to notice a few more FPS, and for the other tasks I haven't found it necessary.

I'm happy overall with the 89W chip with a Freezer Pro cooler, which keeps it near silent and idling at 21C with a max temp of 36C when encoding. Surfing, videos, MP3's, graphics all look the same to me whether fully clocked or with CnQ enabled so I leave it enabled.

I also have a few 754 systems, and while the difference between the 939 and AM2 was nil, the difference between this and the 754 has been huge. However, I do have one 754 with only one 512 stick on a Gigabyte board that friggin' cranks. I just wish my other MSI 754's with 1g were that snappy. Same VIA chipsets BTW.

No regrets here.

 

[rbk123]

I have 2 AMD machines and 1 C2 as follows:

- X2 3800 OC'd to 2.6GHz
- X2 3600 OC'd to 2.8GHz

- 2140 OC'd to 3.2Ghz

The 2140 overall is a hair snappier but it really isn't by much. It's actually slower than the 2.8Ghz X2 when it comes to ripping CD's. I'm very happy with all 3 machines considering how little they cost and how they all scream. I don't game so FPS is a non-issue.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: livingsacrifice
Do any of you notice a difference over Socket 939 setups?

AM2 chips underperform Skt 939's, clock-for-clock.

 

[spittledip]

I built a couple of AM2 systems for relatives. They were both budget builds for the most part. I used an x2 3600 on one which overclocked easily to 2.6 and stayed around 40C under load using an Arctic Cooling Alpine 64 (cheap heatsink but worked). Did not touch voltages. Ran stable on prime95 overnight. The motherboard was a ECS GEFORCE6100SM-M- was surprised that such a cheap motherboard OC'ed so well. I brought it down to 2.2 gigs just to play it safe. The other one I built was an X2 4400. I didn't bother to OC or anything. The machine ran well. Had some trouble with the motherboard though and had to RMA it. It would continually reboot for whatever reason after shutting down some applications. Strange. The RMA fixed that fortunately. The board was a BIOSTAR NF520-A2.
Both systems were fast and "snappy" as others were saying. Nice and cheap, too!

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: livingsacrifice
Do any of you notice a difference over Socket 939 setups?

AM2 chips underperform Skt 939's, clock-for-clock.

When Am2 first came out I would say this had some truth, but obviously not anymore. Especially with Unreal 3 around the corner.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: livingsacrifice
Do any of you notice a difference over Socket 939 setups?

AM2 chips underperform Skt 939's, clock-for-clock.

When Am2 first came out I would say this had some truth, but obviously not anymore. Especially with Unreal 3 around the corner.

I thought that the AM2 A64's had a slightly higher latency accessing the L2 cache? Or is it th other way around, 939 was slightly slower? I think it was a very small amount either way, like 1% difference clock for clock.

I've had my 939 system for about 2 years now, I'm looking forward to Phenom's launch (err... if that ever happens) to wiegh my options on a new build. The last (and only) Intel desktop processor I owned was a 66mhz 486 Packard Bell. I hope Phenom is competitive, or I may end up owning my second Intel desktop processor.

 

[kaioshade]

Happily running an am2 5200+ with 2gb of ram. System is responsive enough for me to do what i want without any problems. Vista and Bioshock certainly do not give me any issues.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: livingsacrifice
Do any of you notice a difference over Socket 939 setups?

AM2 chips underperform Skt 939's, clock-for-clock.

When Am2 first came out I would say this had some truth, but obviously not anymore.

Actually, it did with every single Windsor vs. Skt 939 comparison I've ever seen posted to the internet. And I'm almost positive that AMD said they did not reduce the latency of the L2 cache with the Brisbane cores.

Especially with Unreal 3 around the corner.

And what exactly does the release of a game have to do with the comparison between two almost identically-performing cores, from the same company?

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I thought that the AM2 A64's had a slightly higher latency accessing the L2 cache?

You thought right, at least with the Windsor cores, but I'm not 100% certain if that still pertains to the Brisbane cores.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: livingsacrifice
Do any of you notice a difference over Socket 939 setups?

AM2 chips underperform Skt 939's, clock-for-clock.

When Am2 first came out I would say this had some truth, but obviously not anymore. Especially with Unreal 3 around the corner.

I thought that the AM2 A64's had a slightly higher latency accessing the L2 cache? Or is it th other way around, 939 was slightly slower? I think it was a very small amount either way, like 1% difference clock for clock.

I've had my 939 system for about 2 years now, I'm looking forward to Phenom's launch (err... if that ever happens) to wiegh my options on a new build. The last (and only) Intel desktop processor I owned was a 66mhz 486 Packard Bell. I hope Phenom is competitive, or I may end up owning my second Intel desktop processor.

That is the 65nm brisbane part with larger L2 (1mb x 2) caches . 14 cycles vs 12 cycles. The Am2's beginning hurtle was high latency DDR2. Though as DDR2 picked up the slack, and 4 Cas 1T RAM became more affortable and availble, it became more or less an after thought.

And what exactly does the release of a game have to do with the comparison between two almost identically-performing cores, from the same company?

Threaded games and applications for dual and upcoming AMD quad cores. You can also get an AM2 2.6GHz+ for $140 or while the 939's max out at 2.6GHz (FX's that cost a fortune and that no longer exist).

 

[bryanW1995]

opteron 185 is a little bit more reasonable: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...707439&name=Socket+939

quite a bit more expensive than 5200+ windsor but not out of this world crazy either.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Fayd
My current rig is a c2d, e4400, with a P35 mobo.

and the fact the motherboard does not exhibit a double boot.

That problem is fixed with up-to-date bios on the P35.

all in all, much more pleasant system to build and maintain. beyond that, i coupled it with a single 120mm exhaust fan, no CPU fan (scythe ninja) and 2 low speed 92mm intake fans, fanless video card, it's so quiet...

The E4400 is even easier to keep quiet, seeing as it uses less power than a 4800+.

they're both 65w TDP 0.o

and the x2 has CnQ, which results in lower clock speed and voltage at idle...thus lower heat output at idle, compared to the e4400.

i'm honestly scared of updating the bios on this board. read what happened to other people who did... it's frightening.

that comment when i posted it referred to the overall ease of build. i VASTLY, VAAASSSSTTTLLLYYY prefer the AM2 mounting apparatus over the 775 socket mounting. the ninja went on ridiculously easy, and is held far more securely than i could hope for on my e4400. temps are also very low.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Fayd



they're both 65w TDP 0.o

TDPs are only a guide. Measured power consumption of the E4400 is much lower:

http://www.digit-life.com/arti...-e2140-2160-page3.html

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Fayd



they're both 65w TDP 0.o

TDPs are only a guide. Measured power consumption of the E4400 is much lower:

http://www.digit-life.com/arti...-e2140-2160-page3.html

well, regardless, i still like the am2 mounting mechanism.

though thanks for the link. i may try running my e4400 @ 2.9 fanless. from what i could tell between this rig and my parents one, there wasn't much difference between having the fan and not having the fan.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: JWade
my daughter's system is a dual core am2 system, i dont notice any difference between it and the wife's c2d system. got the am2 system because it was a tad cheaper than the c2d system, but i dont notice any difference between the two.

Same here but I do notice a difference in certain apps. I have an AMD am2 4200X2 and a C2D E6600... overall the windows experience is about the same when browsing, burning, general multitasking. I do notice a big difference in photoshop and working with video.

I think if I were to build another budget system it would be AMD ... but if I need horsepower for graphics/video stuff... its gonna be intel.