Printable View
Out of curiosity... what's the difference between AMD's Socket 939 and 754. If you were building a new system from scratch, what would you buy - is one newer technology?
I personally bought a 939 in the last 6 months, but I chose that over a 754 without knowing the difference.
Cheers
Socket 754 - Budget range, single channel memory. Fastest CPU relased was a 3700 @ 2.4ghz with 1mb cache. Was the first socket with athlon64's.
Socket 939 - Current high end socket, dual channel memory. Supports the very fastest CPU's to date including Dual cores.
Socket 940 - Old socket needing registered RAM, had the first 64 bit Opertrons and the FX51 and FX53 (which later also came out on S939). Generally you shouldnt be buying this socket unless you know what your doing.
Basically if you wanted a system you can upgrade S939 is the way, however in reality socket M2 is coming out next year so S939 will soon be outdated too. I chose S754 a year ago due to it being cheaper, slightly faster (when comparing the same chips) and i knew if i wanted a new processor i'd almost certainly upgrade the motherboard anyway.
939 over 754, unless i was building a budget sempron system.
I built a 754 system recently and it worked well (an Athlon 64 3000+ on an nForce 250Gb chipset motherboard), but ony did this as i was originally thinking about a lower budget and a Sempron, which got changed at the last minute. This system even overclocked quite well by over 10% with no effort or stability issues (if i was to have kept it for myself i'd have really pushed it, but i was giving it away).
If i were to have planned a little better, next time i'd buy a 939 CPU and motherboard to get the dual channel memory controller, plus a dual core X2 if i could afford it.
Actually, there have been reports that 754 is in some ways BETTER than 939. 754 supported DDR2 memory yes?
Sorry, I read this on HARDOCP.
thanks.
Hardocp must be carp then, because thats complete rubbish, doesn't use DD2, uses DDR, and in single channel. People often look down on 754, as a lot slower, but in actual fact, a Clawhammer 754 chip, is just as fast as most A64's on 939. I had a 3700+ on a Nforce 3 DFI, and it was well fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noni
These days you an get a 939 and PCI-E system, for very little more than a 754 system, so there's not much point in getting 754.
Well.. Im not sure which part of HardOCP you read Noni, but I usually find their remarks pretty well grounded abeit a little biased towards Nvidia at times.
Maybe you've just come across an odd one or two bad comparisons, maybe a 2.4Ghz Clawhammer 754 versus a 2.0Ghz 939.. In that case, the 2.4Ghz will definitely win by a mile.
but if you keep their stats similar, you will see that the 939 socket has its advantage.. dual channel memory for example..
In real world situation, may not be as much.. but remember all 754 A64 models have 1MB high speed on die cache.. with those the 939 advantage should narrow down to within like 1~2% at most at similar specs.
No they don't, Newcastle's have 512k.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sawyen
tis true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey21
Newcastles do indeed get 512k cache, but an extra 200mhz on the core :cool:
Diff bw 2 is Ram single channel and dua-channel.
CPU must be same but hard to find mobo nf4-sli in 754.
My bad, forgot totally about them Newcastle cores.. and yes, they do come at 200MHz extra..
But just being safe and all and the ability use upgrade to dual core later, its just better off sticking with 939...
Right :shocked2:Quote:
Originally Posted by sawyen
What makes you think this? They only started recommending nVIDIA fully with the 7800. Before that, [H] seemed neutral about the 6800/x800 series and completely pro ATI when the 9700 Pro hit. You must have just started reading. They are pretty straight shooting on the video card front.
Processors are a completely different story.
Probably true, I've just started reading [H] not too long ago.. And I do agree on the processor bit, but I really don't think its entirely biased towards AMD. Intel just needs to buckle up..Quote:
Originally Posted by smtkr
Other than Dothan and the upcoming Yonah, the rest of the line just seemed rubbish in comparison.. ;)
What I was referring to with the processor bit might be different than you might think. I still think [H] gives objective reviews on processors, but if you look at the types of news articles [H] posts, they post meaningless stuff (i.e. AMD financial articles, etc.) as long as it is positive for AMD. The same is not true for Intel.
I agree that [H] is biased towards certain graphics cards, but it's different than the standard fanboy rantings. [H] is always biased toward the better graphics card, if that makes sense. The best example I can give of this is them using Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness as a benchmark because the 9800 Pro dominated it. I don't think any impartial observer considered that to be a mainstream game indicative of how a majority of a gamer's collection would perform. That's just one example, but there have been a number of examples if you dig back a little further. [H] really really loved 3DFX when that company was still around (as did I).
Anyhow, enough of my senseless hijacking.
All I can say is that its a shame that the actual Athlon 64 chips for skt754 have stopped being made and now only the semprons are availiable.
When I got my system 9 months ago I couldnt belive that I got a athlon 64 3400+ clocked at 2.4Ghz for £135. The equivelent skt 939 3800+ was around 250quid and the performance difference is very minimal. What a bargain! Is the 3800+ worth 400MHz points above the 3400+, I dont think so.
People look down on 754 but the actual difference between a single channel memory controller and a dual one is very minimal. MHz is what matters most!
Couple a skt754 athlon 3400+ or 3700+ (if you can find em) with the albatron sli mobo and youve got yourself a cheap powerful system that will last at least untill the time skt m2 comes along or intels merom for that matter.
No current AMD uses DDR2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noni
Well.. you could also argue that the newer 939 chips are far more overclockable than the Clawhammers on 754. (Newcastle aside, as they are in both 939 and 754)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kef9
While a Venice only needs like 1.4ish volts to hit 2.6Ghz, Clawhammers will need to punch the volts all the way to 1.6ish to hit anywhere 2.6ish..
Yup, Socket M2 brings in DDR2, which is due laterQuote:
Originally Posted by DavidM
True but mine is a newcastle so if I did ever want to oc I can, but im not going to be doing that anyway. If you want to oc a skt 754 there always the 0.9micron semprons.Quote:
Originally Posted by sawyen
Dont you think that £135 for a cpu at 2.4ghz stock was silly money though considering it was 9 months ago? I know I do and thats why I got one.
Also wasnt the 4000+ a clawhammer along with the FX53 and FX55 and as far as I know no one had a problem oc them. Obviously the newer chips are going to oc better.
i got the exact same cpu for near enough identical money. Doesnt clock too bad either, it will do 2.7ghz but needs quite a few volts which i wont give it on air cooling for any length of time. Atm its sitting at 230x11 at 1.6v (1.55v real due to my crappy enermax).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kef9
So glad i got it over the early 3500+ winchester too which had memory controller problems and was quite a bit more expensive.
btw people are getting 2.7-2.8GHz on the Sempron 2500+ - not bad for a £40 chip :p