Can Socket 939 handle newer video cards?

[Chevy-SS]

My comp specs are in my sig. I'd like to upgrade my GPU, but I don't know if my old Socket 939 CPU can handle it.

I use a Dell 30" 3007 monitor and I play Battlefield 2 at 2560x1600 resolution. Right now, I have no AA and medium settings, but I'm still getting some choppy play if there's artillery going off (or other GPU-heavy stuff) in my area. I'd like to be able to crank up the AA and all the other settings.

Can my setup benefit from a new GPU? Recommendations for a ~$250 card?

Many thanks................

-

 

[khanis]

I'd go all out and get a new CPU, mobo, and GPU at this point..
The whole system is aging.

 

[cannondale06]

is that the only game you play? if you are trying to play any newer games then that single core cpu will make getting a decent gpu a waste of money.

 

[toddw]

bang/buck you won't see a huge improvement over your 7950...

Spend less on monitor and more on cpu? The new 3 core from AMD is pretty cheap and works well.

 

[Conker]

It can if it has pci-e. If you have a single core it might be holding you back though. I have a dual core system 939 running on the side here at 3ghz and its similar to a am2 setup in speed. If you have a slow single core though i would just change it all out.

 

[AMDOPTY]

just pop in a dual core, OC it and you'll have a decent system ready for BF2 and any source game at that resolution.

My system in sig is doing fine with the game I play, might upgrade at the next iteration of the intel/amd platforms

 

[Impulse]

That was one of the first PCI-E s939 mobos no? Or one of the most popular if nothing else... At that high a res you're definitely gonna be CPU-bound on newer games though, regardless of what you upgrade the GPU to, and a dual core upgrade won't do much for ya if the game isn't optimized for it (and most aren't). As for recommendations at $250, pick any 4890 or GTX 275; they're all within $220-$240 and performance is really really close... Might as well just pick the one with the best game bundle or warranty. That display's probably worth more than your entire setup at this point, but I guess you can always migrate the new GPU to a new setup whenever you're ready for it.

 

[cannondale06]

That was one of the first PCI-E s939 mobos no? Or one of the most popular if nothing else... At that high a res you're definitely gonna be CPU-bound on newer games though, regardless of what you upgrade the GPU to, and a dual core upgrade won't do much for ya if the game isn't optimized for it (and most aren't). As for recommendations at $250, pick any 4890 or GTX 275; they're all within $220-$240 and performance is really really close... Might as well just pick the one with the best game bundle or warranty. That display's probably worth more than your entire setup at this point, but I guess you can always migrate the new GPU to a new setup whenever you're ready for it.

I think you mixed up CPU and GPU. yes he would be more GPU bound at that res but newer games that are more graphically demanding also require a modern dual core cpu in most cases.

 

[spacetrader]

in my experience though, a 2.5ghz dual core 939 chip gets blown out of the water by an e5200 similarly clocked, and a joke when the intel is clocked to 3.7+. its not about benchmarks, its about how smooth games play, and s939 gear tops out around the 7900gt mark. 8800gt or more, and you're severely limiting yourself by staying with s939.

 

[Conker]

A athlon xp can handle cod4 fine so i wouldn't worry about it that much. A new gpu would be fine. At those resolutions the gpu would be having more of a struggle than the cpu. If he can find a dual core for cheap then that would be good.

 

[cannondale06]

in my experience though, a 2.5ghz dual core 939 chip gets blown out of the water by an e5200 similarly clocked, and a joke when the intel is clocked to 3.7+. its not about benchmarks, its about how smooth games play, and s939 gear tops out around the 7900gt mark. 8800gt or more, and you're severely limiting yourself by staying with s939.

very true for the most part. at 2560 though most decent dual core cpus will be about even since that res is gpu limited. now if he was running a very high gpu setup then yes any of the X2 cpus would get smoked by Core 2 cpus. with the ops current setup he clearly needs a modern dual core cpu of some sort alnong with a better gpu if any newer games are his concern.

 

[haste]

i upgraded to an e5200/4gb ram/matx mobo for like $240 5 months ago. it blows my old opteron 165@2.95ghz socket 939 system away. my trusty 8800gtx even saw a performance boost in games. now running a 285 on this and it runs awesome!


spend a little extra $$ and ugprade the whole thing.

 

[Dozoy]

At those resolutions the gpu would be having more of a struggle than the cpu. If he can find a dual core for cheap then that would be good.

I 100% agree. At high resolutions like that, your cpu surely isnt holding you back!

 

[Impulse]

I think you mixed up CPU and GPU. yes he would be more GPU bound at that res but newer games that are more graphically demanding also require a modern dual core cpu in most cases.

Don't think so, though it was probably the wrong terminology to say what I meant, which is that his CPU would be holding his GPU back at that res on newer games, as you said. Though apparently some disagree...

in my experience though, a 2.5ghz dual core 939 chip gets blown out of the water by an e5200 similarly clocked, and a joke when the intel is clocked to 3.7+. its not about benchmarks, its about how smooth games play, and s939 gear tops out around the 7900gt mark. 8800gt or more, and you're severely limiting yourself by staying with s939.

Yeah, I don't think it's necessarily about dual core vs single core, just about having a faster/more efficient processor.

A athlon xp can handle cod4 fine so i wouldn't worry about it that much. A new gpu would be fine. At those resolutions the gpu would be having more of a struggle than the cpu. If he can find a dual core for cheap then that would be good.

CoD4 is not a very demanding game at all, and I doubt that regardless.

 

[cannondale06]

A athlon xp can handle cod4 fine so i wouldn't worry about it that much. A new gpu would be fine. At those resolutions the gpu would be having more of a struggle than the cpu. If he can find a dual core for cheap then that would be good.

thats an Athlon 64 not XP. no Athlon XP could run COD4 and you are wrong anyway about the 4000 being able to run COD4 smoothly.

his 4000 Athlon 64 would struggle to deliver decent framerates in COD 4. here the 4000 can only muster an average of 26fps even with an 8800gt. notice how even slower clocked dual core cpus get double and tripe the performance of a 4000. http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-5.html

 

[cannondale06]

I 100% agree. At high resolutions like that, your cpu surely isnt holding you back!

maybe not with that particular game. most newer games in general require a much better cpu just to be playable though.

 

[Conker]

thats an Athlon 64 not XP. no Athlon XP could run COD4 and you are wrong anyway about the 4000 being able to run COD4 smoothly.

his 4000 Athlon 64 would struggle to deliver decent framerates in COD 4. here the 4000 can only muster an average of 26fps even with an 8800gt. notice how even slower clocked dual core cpus get double and tripe the performance of a 4000. http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-5.html

lol my brother plays it fine but not at dead high resolutions on a athlon xp at 2.3ghz around 250fsb. I still have that dual core running with a x1950xt in it and it runs all the games great. I only upgraded since i wanted to go phenom. I noticed the most in games today the videocard matters the most of all compared to the past where cpu was once the major decision maker. Cpu still has its effects on games but not as much as before since more engines are now more gpu based. Ofcourse anything quake 3-doom3 engine based games will be more cpu bound but thats only a select few. If he got any of the videocards he wanted he could always put them in another rig later on. Not like hes trying to buy a agp card here lol. He can try it out at least.

 

[cannondale06]

lol my brother plays it fine but not at dead high resolutions on a athlon xp at 2.3ghz around 250fsb. I still have that dual core running with a x1950xt in it and it runs all the games great. I only upgraded since i wanted to go phenom. I noticed the most in games today the videocard matters the most of all compared to the past where cpu was once the major decision maker. Cpu still has its effects on games but not as much as before since more engines are now more gpu based. Ofcourse anything quake 3-doom3 engine based games will be more cpu bound but thats only a select few. If he got any of the videocards he wanted he could always put them in another rig later on. Not like hes trying to buy a agp card here lol. He can try it out at least.

I can tell you that you are very much wrong if you think that the cpu doesnt matter for current video games. if you look at cpu benchmarks for modern games that scale almost as wide as the gpu benchmarks. for instance in some games a fast cpu and 8800gt will beat a slower cpu and gtx280 and thats still with modern dual core cpus. throw in an old outdated single core cpu and you are wasting your time buying a decent gpu.

 

[Yoda4561]

My comp specs are in my sig. I'd like to upgrade my GPU, but I don't know if my old Socket 939 CPU can handle it.

I use a Dell 30" 3007 monitor and I play Battlefield 2 at 2560x1600 resolution. Right now, I have no AA and medium settings, but I'm still getting some choppy play if there's artillery going off (or other GPU-heavy stuff) in my area. I'd like to be able to crank up the AA and all the other settings.

Can my setup benefit from a new GPU? Recommendations for a ~$250 card?

Many thanks................

-

Do you know what version of PCI-e you have? My A8n-e is PCI-e 1.0, apparently some PCI-e 1.0 motherboards and PCI-e 2.0 video cards don't like to play nice together. I had some issues upgrading to a 4850 which may have been 2 bad video cards or the PCI-e issue. I strongly suggest upgrading the whole platform to an AM3 or Core i7 920 if you can afford it, as well as a 4890/gtx280 or better at that resolution. I just can't imagine trying to game on a single core machine these days, and for the price they're going at dual core 939 cpu's aren't really worth the expense. Do try the graphics card first. If the new GPU works in your motherboard you can probably extend the useful gaming life of the machine for a while, and pick up a better CPU/motherboard later on when they're cheaper.

 

[dderidex]

thats an Athlon 64 not XP. no Athlon XP could run COD4 and you are wrong anyway about the 4000 being able to run COD4 smoothly.

his 4000 Athlon 64 would struggle to deliver decent framerates in COD 4. here the 4000 can only muster an average of 26fps even with an 8800gt. notice how even slower clocked dual core cpus get double and tripe the performance of a 4000. http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-5.html

You realize the chart you linked just blew your argument out of the water, right?

I assume you notice that the FX-60, which is a Socket 939 CPU, at STOCK clocks manages 78% of the performance of a Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz at 1280x1024?

And THAT on a GeForce 8800GT, which is something like 3 times the power of his 7950GT! AND at a very low res, which will obviously be more CPU limited than higher resolutions.

I think it's safe to say that there is plenty of headroom in his Socket 939 system for a meaningful CPU upgrade and then allowing a GPU upgrade that will NOT be held back, without needing a "whole system upgrade". If he can find a 939 X2 '4800+' or FX-60 on eBay or Craigslist or something for cheap (<$200) and then put a Radeon 4770 in it (<$100), he'll get a rocking system for a LOT cheaper than a whole new box!

 

[Chevy-SS]

Do you know what version of PCI-e you have? My A8n-e is PCI-e 1.0, apparently some PCI-e 1.0 motherboards and PCI-e 2.0 video cards don't like to play nice together. I had some issues upgrading to a 4850 which may have been 2 bad video cards or the PCI-e issue. ... Do try the graphics card first. ........

Interesting, I will have to try and find out about PCI 1.0 or 2.0. Where would I look, any idea????

Thank you all for the informative replies. I have the money to easily build a new system, but to be honest, my computer works so good I hate to get rid of it, lol.

I think what I may try is to grab a good GPU and give it a whirl. If it doesn't seem to work out very well, I will use the new GPU in a new build.

Gotta go see what's up with the PCI version on my old Asus mobo......

thanks

-

 

[cannondale06]

You realize the chart you linked just blew your argument out of the water, right?

I assume you notice that the FX-60, which is a Socket 939 CPU, at STOCK clocks manages 78% of the performance of a Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz at 1280x1024?

And THAT on a GeForce 8800GT, which is something like 3 times the power of his 7950GT! AND at a very low res, which will obviously be more CPU limited than higher resolutions.

I think it's safe to say that there is plenty of headroom in his Socket 939 system for a meaningful CPU upgrade and then allowing a GPU upgrade that will NOT be held back, without needing a "whole system upgrade". If he can find a 939 X2 '4800+' or FX-60 on eBay or Craigslist or something for cheap (<$200) and then put a Radeon 4770 in it (<$100), he'll get a rocking system for a LOT cheaper than a whole new box!

the comment of mine you quoted said nothing about socket 939. I was talking about how the 4000 compared to slower dual core cpus that blow it away.

 

[dderidex]

For example, this FX-60 just went for $180 on eBay. Pop one of those in this system, which (with the unlocked multipliers it has) can easily be run at 2.8ghz (or 3.0ghz with good cooling) and a Radeon 4770 for $100...

...will be a HUGE upgrade, the CPU will be plenty for that GPU at high resolutions, and only run $280. Which is a far cry from the "whole system upgrade" recommendations.

the comment of mine you quoted said nothing about socket 939. I was talking about how the 4000 compared to slower dual core cpus that blow it away.

OIC. Sorry, thought you were jumping on the "ZOMG, Socket 939 is so obsolete" bandwagon with that comment.

 

[cannondale06]

For example, this FX-60 just went for $180 on eBay. Pop one of those in this system, which (with the unlocked multipliers it has) can easily be run at 2.8ghz (or 3.0ghz with good cooling) and a Radeon 4770 for $100...

...will be a HUGE upgrade, the CPU will be plenty for that GPU at high resolutions, and only run $280. Which is a far cry from the "whole system upgrade" recommendations.



OIC. Sorry, thought you were jumping on the "ZOMG, Socket 939 is so obsolete" bandwagon with that comment.

yeah spending a 180 bucks for a cpu in that machine sounds real smart.

 

[Chevy-SS]

For example, this FX-60 just went for $180 on eBay. Pop one of those in this system, which (with the unlocked multipliers it has) can easily be run at 2.8ghz (or 3.0ghz with good cooling) and a Radeon 4770 for $100...

...will be a HUGE upgrade, the CPU will be plenty for that GPU at high resolutions, and only run $280. Which is a far cry from the "whole system upgrade" recommendations........

Something to consider, but $180 seems like a lot of money for an "old" CPU........

-

 

[dderidex]

yeah spending a 180 bucks for a cpu in that machine sounds real smart.

Alright, find a CPU + 2gb DDR2 ram (as he'll obviously be on DDR right now) + mobo for the same price that will perform better.

I think people keep forgetting just how powerful the FX-60 was - especially given that it basically ran 100% for sure at 2.8ghz and 3.0ghz commonly with decent cooling (unlocked multis).

 

[cannondale06]

Great idea, thanks!

-

not really. a cheap mobo and e5200 would be cheaper and faster than that $180 cpu.

 

[cannondale06]

Alright, find a CPU + 2gb DDR2 ram (as he'll obviously be on DDR right now) + mobo for the same price that will perform better.

I think people keep forgetting just how powerful the FX-60 was - especially given that it basically ran 100% for sure at 2.8ghz and 3.0ghz commonly with decent cooling (unlocked multis).

even the slowest current core 2 cpu will provide more cpu power. for about the same price he could get a cheap mobo, 5200, and 2gb ram. then he could sell that old crap for at least 25-50 bucks and make it even cheaper in the long run.

 

[stealthy123]

you can buy a dual core later generation x2 off ebay for 50-70 bux

if you look hard enough you can find a opteron 160 or similar for less that 100

I just switched to am2 couple weeks ago, prior to that I had an x2 3800+ overclocked to 2.7 and it wasn't noticeably slower than what I run now at stock speed.

I do like the headroom I got with this board/cpu I am running at 3.3 ghz and I never could get close to 3.0 with any of my old 939 cpus.my cpu now cost me I think 40 bux, prices are so low it's not a bad idea whatever you decide to do to be honest.

 

[knothead34]

to the op i have the same processor in my socket 939....i wish i could find a dual core socket 939 for cheap.

 

[dderidex]

even the slowest current core 2 cpu will provide more cpu power. for about the same price he could get a cheap mobo, 5200, and 2gb ram. then he could sell that old crap for at least 25-50 bucks and make it even cheaper in the long run.

Dude, SRSLY, wtf?

Did you look at the graph you linked?

Here is it, again.

Note the 1280x1024 numbers. The FX-60 easily beats an E6300 at stock, and that's not that low-end a 'Core 2' SKU (Newegg currently has it for nearly $100 - and it LOSES to this Socket 939 CPU). And it gets around 80% of the X6800 Core 2 at nearly 3.0ghz, and that's not a cheap model at all. Again, at stock. Which is silly to do for an FX-60, as it's multipliers are unlocked. And he wouldn't need to replace his mobo OR ram to use it.

 

[Chevy-SS]

.......

Note the 1280x1024 numbers. The FX-60 easily beats an E6300 at stock, and that's not that low-end a 'Core 2' SKU (Newegg currently has it for nearly $100 - and it LOSES to this Socket 939 CPU). And it gets around 80% of the X6800 Core 2 at nearly 3.0ghz, and that's not a cheap model at all. Again, at stock. Which is silly to do for an FX-60, as it's multipliers are unlocked. And he wouldn't need to replace his mobo OR ram to use it.

Well, this FX-60 idea is definitely intriguing, but the FX-60 would cost around $200. I might be willing to spring for that, but I just Googled my A8N-SLI mobo and I see that it is PCI 1.0, which apparently is not compatible (or optimal) with PCI 2.0 GPU's.

As much as I hate to think it, I am starting to think I need a new mobo and CPU....

dang

-

 

[dderidex]

Well, this FX-60 idea is definitely intriguing, but the FX-60 would cost around $200. I might be willing to spring for that, but I just Googled my A8N-SLI mobo and I see that it is PCI 1.0, which apparently is not compatible (or optimal) with PCI 2.0 GPU's.

This appears to not be the case, although, apparently, it can't do the SLI thing with 2.0 cards. I've, personally, never had an issue with a PCI-E 2.0 card in a 1.0 mobo - although this obviously can vary from mobo mfg to mfg.

 

[cannondale06]

Dude, SRSLY, wtf?

Did you look at the graph you linked?

Here is it, again.

Note the 1280x1024 numbers. The FX-60 easily beats an E6300 at stock, and that's not that low-end a 'Core 2' SKU (Newegg currently has it for nearly $100 - and it LOSES to this Socket 939 CPU). And it gets around 80% of the X6800 Core 2 at nearly 3.0ghz, and that's not a cheap model at all. Again, at stock. Which is silly to do for an FX-60, as it's multipliers are unlocked. And he wouldn't need to replace his mobo OR ram to use it.

you need to learn to read more carefully because I said CURRENT core 2. I hope you do relaize that even a 2.5 E5200 is actually faster than a E6300. an E5200, mobo and 2gb of ram is faster and cheaper than getting that $180 FX60.

btw the e5200 is about even with the 6000X2 which is faster than a FX60.

 

[cannondale06]

Well, this FX-60 idea is definitely intriguing, but the FX-60 would cost around $200. I might be willing to spring for that, but I just Googled my A8N-SLI mobo and I see that it is PCI 1.0, which apparently is not compatible (or optimal) with PCI 2.0 GPU's.

As much as I hate to think it, I am starting to think I need a new mobo and CPU....

dang

-

you would be wasting your money for that FX60. you can buy a better cpu, new mobo and ddr2 for that price and then sell your old crap.

 

[Red Falcon]

You realize the chart you linked just blew your argument out of the water, right?

I assume you notice that the FX-60, which is a Socket 939 CPU, at STOCK clocks manages 78% of the performance of a Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz at 1280x1024?

And THAT on a GeForce 8800GT, which is something like 3 times the power of his 7950GT! AND at a very low res, which will obviously be more CPU limited than higher resolutions.

I think it's safe to say that there is plenty of headroom in his Socket 939 system for a meaningful CPU upgrade and then allowing a GPU upgrade that will NOT be held back, without needing a "whole system upgrade". If he can find a 939 X2 '4800+' or FX-60 on eBay or Craigslist or something for cheap (<$200) and then put a Radeon 4770 in it (<$100), he'll get a rocking system for a LOT cheaper than a whole new box!

By getting any dual core CPU, yes, even a Pentium D, would be a huge upgrade over that old 4000+ single core.

By uping from a 4000+ to a 3800+ X2, my fps, doubled at many higher resolutions back when I was using a 9600GT and 8800GTS 320.

However, if the OP wants to play games at 2560x1600 with a video card(s) capable of running those resolutions, a whole new system is in order with DDR2 and a modern AM2+ or Intel CPU dual/tri-core.

Even a 4800+ or FX-60 would not be enough of a boost to drive the video cards that can run those extreme resolutions. It would be an upgrade if he were running 1680x1050 or below however, but it's still pushing the limit of those processors.

 

[Red Falcon]

For example, this FX-60 just went for $180 on eBay. Pop one of those in this system, which (with the unlocked multipliers it has) can easily be run at 2.8ghz (or 3.0ghz with good cooling) and a Radeon 4770 for $100...

...will be a HUGE upgrade, the CPU will be plenty for that GPU at high resolutions, and only run $280. Which is a far cry from the "whole system upgrade" recommendations.



OIC. Sorry, thought you were jumping on the "ZOMG, Socket 939 is so obsolete" bandwagon with that comment.

Dude, $180, for a CPU from 2005?! Are you serious? One can get a quad-core AMD cpu for half that price. LOL, totally not worth it. Maybe for $20-30, but NOT $180, what a rip.

Yeah, 939 is obsolete for gaming at 2560x1600, not for 1680x1050 on down though.

 

[Red Falcon]

Alright, find a CPU + 2gb DDR2 ram (as he'll obviously be on DDR right now) + mobo for the same price that will perform better.

I think people keep forgetting just how powerful the FX-60 was - especially given that it basically ran 100% for sure at 2.8ghz and 3.0ghz commonly with decent cooling (unlocked multis).

The FX-60 is only slightly faster than a 5000+ X2 AM2 processor (both run at the same speed but the 60 has double the L2 cache, woo) and it only has a DDR memory controller, not DDR2. Even OCed, it would not be enough. The FX-60 is VERY weak by today's standards and for $180 is completely not worth the money when a GOOD quad-core can be had for about half that price.

For gaming at XHD, a tri/quad-core is the MINIMUM necessary CPU to drive the video cards that can run those resolutions.

 

[Red Falcon]

Dude, SRSLY, wtf?

Did you look at the graph you linked?

Here is it, again.

Note the 1280x1024 numbers. The FX-60 easily beats an E6300 at stock, and that's not that low-end a 'Core 2' SKU (Newegg currently has it for nearly $100 - and it LOSES to this Socket 939 CPU). And it gets around 80% of the X6800 Core 2 at nearly 3.0ghz, and that's not a cheap model at all. Again, at stock. Which is silly to do for an FX-60, as it's multipliers are unlocked. And he wouldn't need to replace his mobo OR ram to use it.

No, YOU don't get it. The OP isn't playing games at 1280x1024, he's playing at 2560x1600, which the FX-60 LOSES BIG TIME ON.

 

[dderidex]

Dude, $180, for a CPU from 2005?! Are you serious? One can get a quad-core AMD cpu for half that price. LOL, totally not worth it. Maybe for $20-30, but NOT $180, what a rip.

Keep in mind that he'd still need to upgrade to 2gb of DDR2 (about $50) and a not-shite motherboard (at least $50). That leaves only $80 for a CPU to beat an FX-60, which is a pretty tall order.

Yeah, 939 is obsolete for gaming at 2560x1600, not for 1680x1050 on down though.

LOLWUT?

The CPU has absolutely nothing to do with resolution. Indeed, if your can change your resolution from 2560x1600 down to 1024x768 without the framerate changing at all, that's the clue that you ARE CPU bound instead of GPU bound, as performance changes at different resolutions is an indicator of how your GPU is doing.

Resolution (and AA, and Aniso filtering) are nearly 100% GPU/0% CPU.