A64 3000+ socket 754vs939

[Canadian Bacon]

Simply I want to know how the 3000+ compares between the socket 754 and 939. What gets me, is the fact that the 939 runs at 1.8 GHz, whereas the 754 runs 2GHz. COuld someone help clarify this for me.

Thanks.

[Jah]

The difference between s939 and s754 is that 939 can run memory in dual channel and s754 can't. Frankly the real world difference between single and dual channel is not as large as the difference that 200Mhz overall clock speed would make. Simply put, a s754 @ 2ghz will easily outperform a s939 at 1.8Ghz... The only real disadvantage with s754 is that it is being abandoned by AMD and upgrading to a more powerful processor in the future may not be possible. Then again, futureproofing is a myth.

[Talus]

I bought a s939 mobo and an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ so that I could buy an Athlon FX s939 CPU when the prices come down later.

[openheimer]

I bought a s939 mobo and an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ so that I could buy an Athlon FX s939 CPU when the prices come down later.

What he said

[imported_Wasp]

Socket 754 doesn't even come close to socket 939. The reason is quite simple. Socket 939 has just about twice the memory bandwidth (when running dual channel) approx 6000MB/sec compared to 3000MB/sec. That means ALOT more than 200Mhz extra CPU speed. I have played BF2 extensively on both systems using the exact same memory, harddrive and 3D card. GF 6800 Ultra, 2x512 MB Patriot XBL 3200, Samsung 80GB harddrive.

The CPU's are a Sempron 3100+ socket 754 and an AMD 64 3000+ Venice. Both runs on 1.8Ghz the only difference is that the Sempron has 256Kb cache instead of 512Kb on the Venice. BF2 runs so much smoother on the socket 939 no matter how much I overclock the 754. Even at 500FSB on the Sempron I only get 3800MB/sec.

[NoSoup4You]

The difference between s939 and s754 is that 939 can run memory in dual channel and s754 can't. Frankly the real world difference between single and dual channel is not as large as the difference that 200Mhz overall clock speed would make. Simply put, a s754 @ 2ghz will easily outperform a s939 at 1.8Ghz... The only real disadvantage with s754 is that it is being abandoned by AMD and upgrading to a more powerful processor in the future may not be possible. Then again, futureproofing is a myth.

Please do your research. Dual channel smokes non-dual channel configurations so the 200mhz difference is next to nill in performance. Top that off with a lower operating temperature with the 939, and you can OC it to 2Ghz easy. In addition the 939 boards have a wider range of support, such as SLi, and the new Dual Core chips.

[Canadian Bacon]

Socket 754 doesn't even come close to socket 939. The reason is quite simple. Socket 939 has just about twice the memory bandwidth (when running dual channel) approx 6000MB/sec compared to 3000MB/sec. That means ALOT more than 200Mhz extra CPU speed. I have played BF2 extensively on both systems using the exact same memory, harddrive and 3D card. GF 6800 Ultra, 2x512 MB Patriot XBL 3200, Samsung 80GB harddrive.

The CPU's are a Sempron 3100+ socket 754 and an AMD 64 3000+ Venice. Both runs on 1.8Ghz the only difference is that the Sempron has 256Kb cache instead of 512Kb on the Venice. BF2 runs so much smoother on the socket 939 no matter how much I overclock the 754. Even at 500FSB on the Sempron I only get 3800MB/sec.

Cache is differnet with the sempron and the standard 754 A64. semptron 256k, a64 512.

Someone correct me if im wrong, this is off the top of my head.

[imported_Wasp]

Cache is differnet with the sempron and the standard 754 A64. semptron 256k, a64 512.

Someone correct me if im wrong, this is off the top of my head.

The difference in cache means next to nothing. 2 - 3% from a regular A64 socket 754. AMD prosessors don't benefit in the same way that P4's do from a bigger cache. That's why P4 comes with 1 - 2MB cache. The biggest problem with socket 754 is the single memory channel. Period.