Socket 939 vs Socket 775 solutions

[sdawson]

I want to build a new desktop/workstation, and am willing to pay for "the best" (within reason!). General use plus video editing, photo manipulation etc. There's lots of talk about AMD vs Intel, and Anandtech has some great reviews of 939 and 775 motherboards etc, and a recommendation for the ultimate high-end machine that comes down in favour of a 939 platform.

I'm interested in people's thoughts on the technology that is in the 775 platforms that's missing from the 939 platforms. How important do you see PCI-E and Hyper Threading for instance? The 939 platforms sound as if they have the best grunt and they have 64-bit capability (although I personally think it's a long shot that this will be of any use withing the forseeable lifetime of a system bought today). But the 775 platforms have newer technology. I'm torn (like many others I guess)!

 

[Geomagick]

For your uses the Intel platform would probably be better because of its encoding abilities.

Although to be perfectly honest you won't notice a great deal of difference between the two as an end user unless you spend all your time encoding huge media files, in which case you would be going down the workstation route anyway.

Hyperthreading does make a difference to performance but not always a positive one - depends on the application.

PCI-E is really not that important at the moment as a technology to buy into although in the next year or so will really start to take off as more companies start to make cards for it.

The best choice for add on cards in still in the old PCI/AGP specifications.

 

[UK Frost]

What newer technology do the 775 based systems have?
It is impossible to recommend a S775 machine over a S939 based one.Video encoding aside the top Intels are consistantly outperformed by the AMD's in virtually every application benchmark and even when video encoding the advantage is slight.
PCI-E will be hugely important and will boast a lot of very good features but at this moment in time in represents nothing but potential.
Intels hyperthreading is both a blessing and a curse depending on what your doing.Numerous small unoptimised threads (ie a server) no problem.One highly optimised thread which makes use of as much of the processors resources as possible the HThreading feature can be a hinderance.
Ok there is no 64 bit OS at present but it's still a 64 bit chip and the advantages over the Intels when comparing clock speeds/performance is clear.No need for dual channel memory due to the chips on die memory controller handling system memory more efficiently and at lower latencies.Hypertransport with a full duplex bus and dedicated memory bus.
If i was you i would be looking at building a system around S939 board and either a 3500 3800 or FX53 depending on budget.Simply put they are just better.

 

[sdawson]

Thanks for the comments so far. I originally leaned towards an AMD FX-53 system with nVidia chipset. Then I got scared off by all the stoies of the inability to run in dual-channel mode with pairs of RAM installed, integrated Gb NIC failing after a while etc. Don't really want to beta-test!

 

[UK Frost]

Nothing to worry about in my opinion.
Also you can run in dual channel on the 939 boards but all the benches i have seen show such a minute performance increase its not really worth bothering about.The Intels on the other hand with no on die memory controller do gain a respectable little boost with dual channel and the little extra bandwidth it provides.
I havent really seen anyone complain about the 939 boards.Always remember that unhappy customers shout louder than happy ones.I'd stick with the FX53 and hunt around for board opinions.I have no doubt you will be over the moon with it.

 

[LTC8K6]

Intels hyperthreading is both a blessing and a curse

You are thinking of the early versions of hyperthreading. The versions in use now are pretty much never a hindrance.

Simply put they are just better.

No they aren't. Both companies make excellent CPU's.

Look around and buy the one that suits your applications and your budget the best. This is a decision you will really have to make on your own.

I don't think you really need to worry about reliability. Bad boards can happen on both sides, but they are rare.

 

[biostud]

nForce4 will bring PCIe to the A64 platform.

 

[clarkey01]

"Intels hyperthreading is both a blessing and a curse"

I.v used a 3.2C an a A64 2800 and worked with lots of windows open, apps, I.E/MSN and to be honest I felt the athlon was faster, I couldnt really see any lag or any hints of it. I think for encoding, erm yeah maybe helps a bit, but I think its over hyped, maybe it does work, a 10% boost @ most which is hard to see.

Also Intel leans heavily on software companies to "enhance" there stuff for HT.

 

[peter7921]

If you want the best and willing to wait then wait for the Nforce 4 chipset to come out. I has PCI-E that you want.

 

[UK Frost]

@LTC8K6

Tell me what early version of hyperthreading you are refering to and how does it differ from what we have presently?

Hyperthreading was initially meant to benefit the processing of many small threads of data much like a server hence they were introduced on the Xeons first.They can take a performance hit when processing highly optimised streams of code which have to constantly fight each other for resources ( eg L2 cache) it's a bit like having to pass a cigarette back and forth.In extreme cases they hit can be a large one.

The thread starter asked initially about the socket 939 AMD chips.Can you show me Intels equivalent please for the AMD64 3800 and FX53.Which of Intels current line up is better than these two chips? or massively cheaper to compensate for having lesser performance.

I'm not a fan boy,nor do i have any loyalty to one particular brand.If i buy top end i want the best for my money which at the time of me building my system was the P4 Northwood.The tables have now turned and the AMD's are a far better bet than the Prescotts and P4EE.I really cant see how anyone can refute that fact.

Currently AMD make superb chips.Intel have a great marketing department.

Regards....

 

[LTC8K6]

Intel improved hyperthreading after it's initial release in the Xeons. Those initial Xeons with HT did indeed show slowdowns in some areas, and Intel fixed that problem with HT when it was finally released with the 3.06B desktop chip.

Both companies make excellent chips. Neither is far better than the other, imo.

Currently Both AMD and Intel make superb chips. AMD has no marketing department at all, apparently.

That's really too bad because dueling commercials and ads would probably lower prices for everybody. More people would know that AMD was a good choice, too.

 

[UK Frost]

Hey i'm with you on that one.Superiority for one is bad for us all.
I use an Intel myself and it's a great chip.I just think that AMD have stolen the march on them this time by being first to implement 64 bit.
The Prescott was a disapointment and offers no real advantages over Northwood and the top end P4EE's are more expensive and worse performing than the top end AMD's.

775 v 939 there is only one winner.

 

[LTC8K6]

Personally, the different socket design of the new Prescotts is something I am curious to play around with although I doubt I'll buy an A64 or a Prescott until the future gets a bit clearer.

I actually need 2 new systems at the moment, and I will probably build one of each, and put an NV video card in one and an ATI card in the other.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: sdawson
Thanks for the comments so far. I originally leaned towards an AMD FX-53 system with nVidia chipset. Then I got scared off by all the stoies of the inability to run in dual-channel mode with pairs of RAM installed, integrated Gb NIC failing after a while etc. Don't really want to beta-test!

thats a shame.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: George Powell
For your uses the Intel platform would probably be better because of its encoding abilities.

not true. with socket 939, amd excels over intel on encoding/decoding. basically, many benchmarks, including anandtech's, say taht amd basically beats intel in everything now, though not by much in certain things like encoding.

 

[UK Frost]

I think thats one of the problems i have with Intel at the moment.AMD just seem to have a clearer idea about where they are going and have stated that they see S939 being a big part of their future plans.
If i upgraded to a S939 set up now i would feel reasonably confident that that socket would have a decent lifespan.I'm not so sure with 775.This is just my interpretation of course.

 

[sdawson]

Originally posted by: UK Frost
Nothing to worry about in my opinion.
Also you can run in dual channel on the 939 boards but all the benches i have seen show such a minute performance increase its not really worth bothering about.The Intels on the other hand with no on die memory controller do gain a respectable little boost with dual channel and the little extra bandwidth it provides.
I havent really seen anyone complain about the 939 boards.Always remember that unhappy customers shout louder than happy ones.I'd stick with the FX53 and hunt around for board opinions.I have no doubt you will be over the moon with it.

I did look through the Anandtech forums, and there are quite a number of posts from users with the Gigabyte nVidia-based board who have problems with RAM. Even high-end RAM can't run in dual channel mode etc. And it seems that all nVidia-based boards have problem with the on-chip Gb LAN stopping after a while. They're the things that worried me about getting what otherwise seem to be the best 939-based solutions.

 

[caz67]

Hi.

Do the research and make an informed decision that is right for you.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I would recommend the AMD route, as has been stated, AT's benches for the FX-53 and S939 show that it outperforms Intel at even encoding. Also, PCI-Express and DDR2 are showing no gain in performance at this point. In fact the only thing that would make me consider 775 right now would be the Intel HD Audio.

Check out the other forums like Motherboard and see what threads have been made about various boards. Also, if you read the reviews of Socket 775 boards, you'll see that a lot of them have been having quite a few problems as well.

Oh, and there are 64-bit OSes, just not Windows XP yet.

 

[Quesdad]

There are no motherboards in the939/ 64 bit arena that support PCI Express yet. As such I would wait for that.

 

[batmanuel]

There's always socket 940. More expensive than 939 (especially when you factor in registered RAM), but dual channel works without issue and the S940 boards will most likely support the dual-core Opterons down the road, which gives you a great future upgrade path. Plus, the register RAM ought to give you a tad more stability if you are working with seriously RAM-intensive apps.

If you go with an Opteron 150 instead of the much more expensive multiplier-unlocked FX-53, the price for the processor isn't that bad (around $600). That's the same price as the top end S939 3800+ A64, but you get twice the L2 cache. If you can get past paying the motherboard and RAM premium, I'd recommend S940.

Keep in mind that I've also heard talk of a nForce 4 Pro S940 with PCI-E and a pair of x16 slots for SLI. (Dual Quadros anyone? Yummy. Especially if the hardware video encoders work in SLI mode).