FX-62 and 5000+ in socket 939! Woo-hoo!

[wolfman11]

According to the inquirer...and confirmed on AMD's site...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32014

 

[Wall7486]

Why does AMD even bother? People that currently have s939 probably have very overclockable venice, opterons or they even have the FX-57 and FX-60. Even people who are getting a new rig will probably get an AM2 as oppose to a s939 rig. I don't see the the reason behind it.

 

[wolfman11]

I think it makes sense for someone like me. I built an Opteron 146 rig 2 months ago because I needed better video performance and AGP is dying. So I got a 939 board and a single core chip pretty much driven by a need for pci express. Moved my 2 gig OCZ platinum ram, etc over to the new setup. I did this intentionally knowing that I wanted a dual core, but that the coming of conroe was going to cause the prices on the AMD side to fall.

So, like a lot of people I think, I bought a cheap single core chip and am waiting till the end of the year, early next year to grab a cheaper dual core. All this release means for me is that there are now 2 more models available at the top which will push down the price of the FX-60 and the 4800+.

Ultimately I have no intention of getting off s939 any time soon as the value isn't there to turn over the board, ram, cpu...it's a great move by AMD to hang another carrot in front of existing s939 owners - one more thing that maybe keeps them on the amd platform versus switching to Intel.

 

[firewolfsm]

This should push down the 3800, nice.

 

[classy]

This to me is ehhh. DDR2 is faster overall. And over time will continue to improve, while ddr1 is probably tapped out so to speak. For folks buying a new setup I see no reason at all not to go with ddr2. For those with ddr1 setups, I see no reason at all to invest in either of these processors.

 

[F1shF4t]

lol there will finaly be a fater stock speed socket 939 cpu than mine, lol
I'm hoping the prices for dualies drop considerably when conroe releases, then i might pick up a second X2, like a 4400+ one for cheap.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Wall7486
Why does AMD even bother? People that currently have s939 probably have very overclockable venice, opterons or they even have the FX-57 and FX-60. Even people who are getting a new rig will probably get an AM2 as oppose to a s939 rig. I don't see the the reason behind it.

I've spent a boatload of money on my current system and am very happy with it. I'm glad to see they're supporting it with one more CPU generation. As good as the new stuff appears to be from Intel, I'm just not in the mood to swap everything out for a couple years. It sounds to me like it might be a "thank you" to all the Socket 939 AMD loyalists for helping make AMD a force in the market.

If I were building something new, which I'm not, I'd likely get a Conroe. That said, I'm not laying any more ca$h out for quite awhile except maybe for another CPU down the road....

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: classy
This to me is ehhh. DDR2 is faster overall. And over time will continue to improve, while ddr1 is probably tapped out so to speak. For folks buying a new setup I see no reason at all not to go with ddr2. For those with ddr1 setups, I see no reason at all to invest in either of these processors.

No it's not. You're telling me 4-4-4-12 or 5-5-5-15 at 667 MHz is faster than 2-2-2-5 or 2-3-2-5 at 400 MHz? DDR2 has a faster bus but much longer waits. You're right about DDR1 being tapped out, but I'll take lower latencies.

 

[lopri]

See, the problem with current AM2 reviews comparing Socket 939 is that they use DDR400 with 2-2-2-X timing and DDR2 800 with 4-4-4-X timing. I can't help but thinking these reviewers are trying their best to put AM2 in the bright spot. Why? Think about it. How many enthusiasts actually run their memory @200MHz?! My 2 Socket 939 rigs have memory configurations as follow:

Main rig: 2 x 1GB OCZ PC3200 Titanium @250MHz (2.5-3-2-6)
Test rig: 2 x 512MB OCZ PC4200 Platinum @300MHz (2.5-3-3-7)

Most people OC their RAM just like they OC their CPUs, and manufacturers have been producing DDR430, DDR500, DDR550, etc. for years now. And according to various reviews, in order to match DDR400 (2-2-2) performance, AM2 needs the top of the line DDR2 800. Today I checked the prices of those via RTPE and they were like $300~400 for 2GB set (2 x 1GB)

Despite the reviewers (and AMD's) best effort, AM2 platform in current shape is inferior to Socket 939 platform, periord. I dare to ask the reviewers to do a "realistic" comparison of AM2 vs Socket 939. Also check the prices of DDR2-800 (4-4-4). I couldn't believe my eyes. Do something like popular config of DDR500 (2.5-3-3-7) or even DDR600 (2.5-4-3-8). We will see the true performance of current AM2 platform.

 

[Kakumba]

Please remember that DDR2 latencies arent *quite* the same as DDR. the numbers are higher, but in real world wait times, they arent as bad as it seems. they are looser, but not as much as you think.

DDR2 is expensive as hell, and thats part of the reason im not going AM2 (or Conroe for that matter).

anyways, both processors are pointless to me, regardless of socket, except that they puch prices of lower chips down, and those are the chips I buy.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: classy
This to me is ehhh. DDR2 is faster overall. And over time will continue to improve, while ddr1 is probably tapped out so to speak. For folks buying a new setup I see no reason at all not to go with ddr2. For those with ddr1 setups, I see no reason at all to invest in either of these processors.

Huh? Suppose I want to leverage my current investment a little longer?

 

[imported_chapel]

Im sorry to say that there will be no 5000+ and FX-62 in 939. It has been confirmed by AMD themselves with a site update, it was just a typo.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html

 

[Ranulf]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: classy
This to me is ehhh. DDR2 is faster overall. And over time will continue to improve, while ddr1 is probably tapped out so to speak. For folks buying a new setup I see no reason at all not to go with ddr2. For those with ddr1 setups, I see no reason at all to invest in either of these processors.

Huh? Suppose I want to leverage my current investment a little longer?

Or that one doesn't wish to be a beta tester that usually happens with early adoption of new tech.

 

[Ika]

how much does supporting 939 cost AMD?