Are the s939 A64's still a good buy?

[ashwaterfire]

I have not built a Pc since last winter when the A64 s939's were busting out on the seen, my last build included an A64 3500+

I have not kept up with the times here lately when it comes to new cpu's and I just need someone to just update me on the status of s939 popularity and whatever cpu's by AMD may be better..

Also, I'm looking to build a decent system to play Counterstrike Source again, should I just go s939 again, like i sucesfully did last winter(very happy with system), or is there a new, smarter more economical route to take

Thanks for any help

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You got plenty of CPU for CS:Source or gaming in general, buying a high-end vid card is the way to go.

 

[ashwaterfire]

Yeah, I will chose my video card wiseley, I am really only here to get briefed on s939 and if its still a top contender since last winter when it was most popular.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: ashwaterfire
Yeah, I will chose my video card wiseley, I am really only here to get briefed on s939 and if its still a top contender since last winter when it was most popular.

Nothin' has changed. X2 and Opteron dual-core are the new performance kings, but for gaming they don't offer any price-performance benefit over single core. X-bit did a 2 part review here Cliff notes is that high res and settings make any modern CPU a good gamer. If you have the money and are on AGP then buying a new board, new high-end card, and overclocking, would be a good way to go. I just can't see upgrading your present CPU for games at all.

 

[ashwaterfire]

Okay, so not much is new then.

so building a system consisting of an 939 3200 or better and 6800gt would not come with regret if I only plan on playing CS:S?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

A 3200+ and a 6800gt is still a great gaming rig for CS:S. You will likely have a lot of people tell you that a 6800gt isn't good enough, you should get a 7800gtx. IMO unless you have a large monitor and plan on gaming at high resolutions the 6800gt is a great price to performance card, I'm still gaming quite happily with a 17" monitor and a 6600gt, and get great FPS in most all newer games with medium settings.

 

[imported_Skebo]

I am also confused by some of the recommendations I see on these boards. It appears that dual core Opterons are being promoted over the comparable Athlon X2s. I was looking to build a 939 based system and using the X2 3800+ Manchester, but lately it seems that everybody is saying to go the Opteron route.

My system is going to be used for business during the day and gaming at night. A primary concern is noise during the day, so I like the 'Cool n' Quiet/PowerNow ' features, but it seems that some people are having a problem in this regard with the Opterons. I don't plan on doing any overclocking, so which processor is best for me? The Athlon X2 3800+ or the similarly priced Opteron 165? What's the major difference, other than cache size, between these two chips? And does the extra large cache really make a significant difference in performance? I haven't really seen a review that indicates a real benefit to having a 2x1MB cache versus a 2x512KB cache. Can anybody enlighten me?

Thanks!

 

[Markfw]

Opteron 170 with thermaltake XP90 and a panaflo. Can't be heard, and cools great, and OC's like mad.

 

[coomar]

the 3800 is going to be faster at stock than the 165

cool n quiet is not going to work well with overclocking

 

[klocwerk]

quick note re: video card, 6800GS are as fast as (if not faster than) 6800GTs, and only $209 retail.

 

[imported_Skebo]

The 170 is a bit outside my budget at ~$400. I'm already pushing it if I spend $325 on the processor.

I plan on using a Ninja Scythe paired with a Nexus 120mm to cool my processor.

 

[onn2000]

Take the fastest processor within your budget.

 

[imported_Skebo]

Originally posted by: onn2000
Take the fastest processor within your budget.

That's where my question really comes from. Why are people promoting (not necessarily in this thread) a 165 Opteron over a cheaper Athlon, when the Athlon appears to be faster?

Processor: Dual-Core AMD Opteron? Processor
Model Number: 165
Frequency (GHz): 1.8
L2 Cache Size: 2 MB
Socket: 939
Stepping: E6
Manufacturing Tech (CMOS): .09 micron SOI
Wattage (W): 110.0
Integrated Memory Controller (GHz): 1.8



Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core
Model Number: 3800+
Frequency (MHz): 2000
L2 Cache Size: 512KB x2
Socket: Socket 939
Stepping: E4
Manufacturing Tech (CMOS): 90nm SOI
Wattage (W): 89
System Bus (MHz): 2000

The A64 is 2000 MHz versus 1800 MHz for the Opteron, but the Athlon has a smaller L2 cache. So, which one is faster? The Opteron is $30 more than the Athlon. Why promote the Opteron?

 

[Regalk]

That would be Thermalright XP-90. I recently bought a S939 - 3000+ (@2700) and works great for me. I may just wait until the Opteron 170 drop in prices.

 

[forumposter32]

If you've been out of the loop for a while maybe the only thing you need to know is that today's games can run better on 2GB of RAM. It seems extreme but it does make a difference.

Anyway, here's a benchmark thingy with all the latest CPUs.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts-27.html

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: Skebo

Originally posted by: onn2000
Take the fastest processor within your budget.

That's where my question really comes from. Why are people promoting (not necessarily in this thread) a 165 Opteron over a cheaper Athlon, when the Athlon appears to be faster?

Processor: Dual-Core AMD Opteron? Processor
Model Number: 165
Frequency (GHz): 1.8
L2 Cache Size: 2 MB
Socket: 939
Stepping: E6
Manufacturing Tech (CMOS): .09 micron SOI
Wattage (W): 110.0
Integrated Memory Controller (GHz): 1.8



Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core
Model Number: 3800+
Frequency (MHz): 2000
L2 Cache Size: 512KB x2
Socket: Socket 939
Stepping: E4
Manufacturing Tech (CMOS): 90nm SOI
Wattage (W): 89
System Bus (MHz): 2000

The A64 is 2000 MHz versus 1800 MHz for the Opteron, but the Athlon has a smaller L2 cache. So, which one is faster? The Opteron is $30 more than the Athlon. Why promote the Opteron?

i agree in that the opteron is a hype and confuses "normal" pc ppl. overclockers of course have a nice new horse to run for them but i wouldnt advise an Opteron for every user. its just a small wave and it will go back into the ocean soon. alot of forum posters feel very cool to suggest an opteron for everyone looking for a new comp. thats crap imo but u cant stop it anyways

 

[imported_Skebo]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch

i agree in that the opteron is a hype and confuses "normal" pc ppl. overclockers of course have a nice new horse to run for them but i wouldnt advise an Opteron for every user. its just a small wave and it will go back into the ocean soon. alot of forum posters feel very cool to suggest an opteron for everyone looking for a new comp. thats crap imo but u cant stop it anyways

I think part of the problem is that now days 95% of the posters assume that everybody is overclocking. That's why I was clear to say that I was NOT going to OC.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you are not going to overclock, take 200mhz over more cache. Just like back in the days, Newcastle (512kb) ruled Clawhammer (1mb) without overclocking at same performance rating (ie. 2.2ghz 512mb 3200+ > 2.0ghz 1mb 3200+)

 

[onn2000]

If you're not overclocking, get the X2 3800 then. Best bang for the buck. If you can get a 170 Opteron for a similar price, get that instead.

 

[Avalon]

The 6800GS isn't out in AGP yet...or is it?