Socket 939 has a worse price:performance ratio than 754, so why would anyone want it?

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Noob
That's the only thing I don't like aobut AMD: much more frequent Socket changes.

Intel not changing it's sockets as much is meaningless since cpu's that use the same socket won't work on every motherboard..for example there are socket 478 williamettes, northwoods that range from 400mhz FSB to 800mhz FSB, and 800mhz FSB prescotts..williamettes won't work on some of the newer boards, some of the boards dropped 400mhz FSB support, and not all of the 800mhz FSB boards can support prescott.

LGA775..865/875 based boards don't support the EM64T 6xx series chips, 915/925 based chipsets support the 6xx series, but not dual cores, so you need 945/955 series chipsets for dual core.

I think thats even worse than AMD changing sockets. At least all 939 chips will work in all 939 boards, and all 754 chips will work in all 754 boards.

 

[n7]

One reason why i switched from 754 to 939. OCing.

It's much better with the 939 CPUs.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

The following quote represents one reason people buy socket-939: They're misinformed.

Originally posted by: biostud
PCIe,

Socket 754 does support PCI-express, as discussed earlier, but some folks, for whatever reason, don't seem to know about it.

Rev E. cores,

E3 stepping will not make a processor faster than the models ahead of it. The Venice 3000+, for example, is still going to be slower than the Newcastle 3200+. Actually, E3 stepping hardly impacts performance at all in most areas, and the even biggest differences are only in the 2-3% range.

Besides, socket-754 does have an E3 CPU, in the form of the new Sempron 3100+, which according to rumor is one heck of an overclocker!

X2, fastest processors.

If you want an X2, then s754 is not an option. But for the 3700+ and below, I'd say that most people are better off with socket-754.

 

[MobiusPizza]

Originally posted by: SonicIce

Originally posted by: FlyingPenguin
Well one thing I can throw at you is that only socket 939 mobos are upgradable to dual core.

How do we know current socket 939 motherboard will be compaticle with whatever AMD comes up with in 2 years? DDR2, DDR3, PCI-E generation 2, but the old CPU's will still work? I don't think so.

This doesn't apply to you if you upgrade your CPU every month but for some reason keep the same videocard.

Well the current X2 generation supports 939
When DDR2 comes out Socket M2 will take over
But M2 might not have too much performance advantage as the only difference is DDR2 so S939 can survive for a bit

Also, $66 price difference is NOT a lot. Newer and faster CPU, such as Venice with its nice o/c and memory controller is attractive. At least you are not paying $66 extra for NO performance gain, there are like 5% gain at the very least

 

[MobiusPizza]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
The Athlon 64 3400+ is faster than a 3500+ on average, or about the same.

I see nowhere 3500+ is actually on the scoreboard
And it is impossible that a s939 CPU of same frequency of s754 will underperform a s754

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX

Also, $66 price difference is NOT a lot. Newer and faster CPU, such as Venice with its nice o/c and memory controller is attractive. At least you are not paying $66 extra for NO performance gain, there are like 5% gain at the very least

Where did you get the 5% figure? If anything, socket-754 has the performance edge. Check out these benchmarks, for instance: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-18.html Note the performance of the socket-754 "Newcastle" 3200+ compared to that of the socket-939 "Winchester" (which performs similarly to the "Venice").

With socket-754 you get better performance for less money. Why go with 939 if you can avoid it?

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX

Originally posted by: SonicIce
The Athlon 64 3400+ is faster than a 3500+ on average, or about the same.

I see nowhere 3500+ is actually on the scoreboard
And it is impossible that a s939 CPU of same frequency of s754 will underperform a s754

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/SonicIce/3400.gif 3400 hangs with the 3800 in some benchies

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX
I see nowhere 3500+ is actually on the scoreboard

Are you blind? There are two of them!

And it is impossible that a s939 CPU of same frequency of s754 will underperform a s754

First of all, the popular version of the 3400+ runs at 2.4 GHz, compared to the 3500+'s 2.2 GHz. But even if they were the same, there's more to a CPU than clock speed.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX

Originally posted by: SonicIce
The Athlon 64 3400+ is faster than a 3500+ on average, or about the same.

I see nowhere 3500+ is actually on the scoreboard
And it is impossible that a s939 CPU of same frequency of s754 will underperform a s754

3500+ is there, twice. Look near the top, 125%. As for CPUs being the same frequency, remember that AMD gives dual channel RAM a PR boost of 300 points or so, so the S754 3200+ and S939 3500+ are the same frequency(2.2ghz). The comparable S939 chip to a S754 3400+ is the 3800+.

 

[MobiusPizza]

lol thanks. My bad.
You should blame AMD for the stupid PR rating

200Mhz impact in performance in AMD CPU is A LOT
That's why it outformed a s939
If they were the same frequency the dual channel memory would have bought around 5% performance advantage

But you have to also note that overclocking Vence 90nm core by 200Mhz is so easy that newbies can do it. And it should overclock much better than the 130nm counterpart s754 because of the smaller process and SOI

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX
lol thanks. My bad.
You should blame AMD for the stupid PR rating

200Mhz impact in performance in AMD CPU is A LOT
That's why it outformed a s939
If they were the same frequency the dual channel memory would have bought around 5% performance advantage

But you have to also note that overclocking Vence 90nm core by 200Mhz is so easy that newbies can do it. And it should overclock much better than the 130nm counterpart s754 because of the smaller process and SOI

true its easy but you cant always count on that if you are building a computer for someone and they're usually way to scared to try it

 

[SonicIce]

You can't buy 939 just for its overclocking abilities, 754 overclocsk really good too, it might run a little bit hotter though

 

[frx218]

When I build machines for my friends who won?t be upgrading or over clocking, I use the 754 its cheaper and you can buy a better video card with the saved cash.

Perfect for budget machines..

 

[Hacp]

The way I see it, it is better to have really good now than to have soso now and upgrade options later. Next year, m2 will take over and 939 will be the "budget system". Whenever I see people posting asking if they should upgrade their cpu, the answer i see most people post is that no, they should wait and buy a new machine, because the new processors on the new sockets are better. In a year or two, that will be the case with the 939. People will ask if they should upgrade to a dual core or whatever when they become cheaper, and most people will post that they should wait just a little bit longer and buy a whole new comp.

Btw, to whoever said 939 is the better overclocking option, the sempron exists for socket 754. Overclocks almost like the venice at saem clock speeds. The only downside to 754 is limited PCI-E support, and no dual core.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: stevty2889

Originally posted by: Noob
That's the only thing I don't like aobut AMD: much more frequent Socket changes.

Intel not changing it's sockets as much is meaningless since cpu's that use the same socket won't work on every motherboard..for example there are socket 478 williamettes, northwoods that range from 400mhz FSB to 800mhz FSB, and 800mhz FSB prescotts..williamettes won't work on some of the newer boards, some of the boards dropped 400mhz FSB support, and not all of the 800mhz FSB boards can support prescott.

LGA775..865/875 based boards don't support the EM64T 6xx series chips, 915/925 based chipsets support the 6xx series, but not dual cores, so you need 945/955 series chipsets for dual core.

I think thats even worse than AMD changing sockets. At least all 939 chips will work in all 939 boards, and all 754 chips will work in all 754 boards.

Quoted for truth. It's a friggin mess when you keep the same socket and then every new processor that comes out requires a chipset change and thus a mobo change.


The main reason for getting a S939 over S754 is basically upgradeability and a longer time before your your investment becomes "obsolete" by newer technology.

However, obsolete technology in the PC world is not really obsolete as it's still perfectly useable. If all I'm doing is mostly typing up a report and web browsing I could do that on a Pentium. It'd probably run dog slow if using todays software but it'd run.

If you are getting a computer and you don't plan to upgrade within 5 years then by all means, get the S754 as it's much cheaper and a better price/performance machine than a S939.

If you are the type to upgrade in two years or less then the S939 is a better option. It's a little more expensive and that's a con. There are two main reasons to get a S939.

It supports PCI-E, maybe not all mobo's but most S939 anywyas. PCI-E should be the video card and expansion card standard for at least the next 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with a PCI-E v2.0 with double the bandwith or something in the coming years and mobos with 6 or 7 PCI-E 16x expansion slots which would further expand it's life cycle well beyond 10 years.

It supports x2 dual core processors. Games should start showing up in roughly two years or so that makes good use of multi-threading. Towards the end of 2006 Socket M2 will be introduced but that doesn't mean production of cpu's for S939 will just stop (though likely S754 will at that point or soon after). When M2 comes out, S939 will be the new low end socket for AMD and take the place of S754. So there will still be plenty of new cpu's for it. Likely not the fastest version of any model nor will it get the cpu's first but a little patience and some overclocking takes care of those problems.

So if I got a S754 and wanted a new high end graphics card in two years. It's likely that I won't be able to get one. The next generation of video cards seem to be built for PCI-E and maybe if demand is good they'll use a bridge chip and produce AGP ones for a slightly higher price. This is similar to why initial PCI-E video cards were slightly higher in price. They had to take video cards originally designed for AGP and add in a bridge chip to convert it to PCI-E but in reverse. So it's not guaranteed I can upgrade to a better video card. I am pretty much SOL if I wanted a dual core CPU. Prognosis is that I'd have to upgrade my whole system to either a S939 or M2 system. At that point the S939 system would be the low end and have a better price/performance ration than the M2 ironically enough.

 

[ProviaFan]

One word: dual core

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

I don't buy the whole upgrading argument. Socket 754 is much cheaper right now, which means that with the money you save now, you can upgrade, later. I gave a specific example of how this works earlier in the thread, if you're curious.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
I don't buy the whole upgrading argument. Socket 754 is much cheaper right now, which means that with the money you save now, you can upgrade, later. I gave a specific example of how this works earlier in the thread, if you're curious.

I didn't read the whole thread, so if this was covered already...

Dual core is not available on 754 - what part of that do you not understand? I need dual core now. It was dual Opterons on a workstation board versus dual core on a high-end socket 939 board. Cheap socket 754 stuff never entered into the equation. :roll:

 

[BadAcid]

Lower heat dissipation, possible SLI configurations, future dual core support, only motherboards cost more instead of the chips themselves, motherboards come with newer features, 1000 MHz HT, dual channel memory.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
I don't buy the whole upgrading argument. Socket 754 is much cheaper right now, which means that with the money you save now, you can upgrade, later. I gave a specific example of how this works earlier in the thread, if you're curious.

I didn't read the whole thread, so if this was covered already...

Dual core is not available on 754 - what part of that do you not understand? I need dual core now. It was dual Opterons on a workstation board versus dual core on a high-end socket 939 board. Cheap socket 754 stuff never entered into the equation. :roll:

What's your point? You can't get a socket 939 setup (mobo/CPU) for less than $150, either. Obviously, if you need something extremely inexpensive, you go with s754, while if you need something extremely fast, you go with 939. But for that overlap of 3000+ through 3700+, it's usually best to opt for socket-754.

 

[Continuity27]

About Price : performance though... it should be within reason and individual.

If someone wants to spend money on SLI, twice as much for an 80% or less increase at certain resolutions, that's not being stupid.. that's just what they decided on.

You can also say "Look at that processor, it does 1 operation per clock cycle and it costs a penny, but that one over there does 100 operations per clock cycle and costs $2.00... BOOOO for horrible price : performance!" This isn't the case for 939 vs 754, but you can't say something like "XXX has a worse price : performance ratio than YYY, so why would anyone want it?" Because not everyone goes for price : performance, some go for total performance, some go for total price.. etc.

It's not up to anyone but the buyer.

 

[piroroadkill]

Don't buy 754, buy 939. It's as simple as that. Unless you want a budget setup through and through, don't buy 754 anymore.

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
Don't buy 754, buy 939. It's as simple as that. Unless you want a budget setup through and through, don't buy 754 anymore.

wow thanks for the insight

 

[Vernor]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
One word: dual core

Will we see <150$ s939 dual-cores ?

In the next 12 months ? Ever ?

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Continuity27
About Price : performance though... it should be within reason and individual.

If someone wants to spend money on SLI, twice as much for an 80% or less increase at certain resolutions, that's not being stupid.. that's just what they decided on.

You can also say "Look at that processor, it does 1 operation per clock cycle and it costs a penny, but that one over there does 100 operations per clock cycle and costs $2.00... BOOOO for horrible price : performance!" This isn't the case for 939 vs 754, but you can't say something like "XXX has a worse price : performance ratio than YYY, so why would anyone want it?" Because not everyone goes for price : performance, some go for total performance, some go for total price.. etc.

It's not up to anyone but the buyer.

Nobody's saying that a getting super fast 3800+ and beyond CPU is a bad idea, nor SLI. Like I keep saying, it's that overlap of 3000+ through 3700+ that we're talking about.