AM2 with ddr 667 or s939 with ddr 400?

C

Ciggarilo Himself

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
464
I have two options what should I go with,here they are:

1.s939 3200+,1gb ddr 400 with low latencies or...
2.AM2 3200+,1gb ddr 667 with proably real high latencies because it is generic but I will proably be able to overclock this one more and have an upgrade path but it will be slower than the other option.

How much slower will my second option be with the extra overclocking?

Here is what they cost in New Zealand Dollars:

Option 1: s939 proc=$150
Option 2 Am2 proc=$134
also available is the Am2 3000+ for $117

Which would you get?

Thanks:)
 
since their performance is about the same. am2 platform is slightly better than s939 platform...2-5%.

so get the AM2, since it's cheaper!!!!!!!!:)
 
What are the latencies in question? Like I mentioned in another thread: some decent DDR with nice timings (2-2-2-6), goes a long way towards spanking DDR2. I actually found a bandwidth calculator few months ago. You input the DDR/DDR2 speeds and latencies, and it outputs total bandwidth/performance ratio. Let's just say, you will be paying $100s more DDR2-wise to catch up with plain old DDR.
 
I would go for the AM2 option simply because the supply of really good DDR sucks right now. Most e-tailers don't even have DDR500 listed as a speed that they carry. That might not be a problem if your ram dividers all work well (mine don't). You just have more options and a chance to reuse that DDR2 in the future if you go AM2, all without sacraficing performance. I also suggest getting one 1GB stick rather than 2 512's.
 
CurrentlyNotHere said:
What are the latencies in question? Like I mentioned in another thread: some decent DDR with nice timings (2-2-2-6), goes a long way towards spanking DDR2. I actually found a bandwidth calculator few months ago. You input the DDR/DDR2 speeds and latencies, and it outputs total bandwidth/performance ratio. Let's just say, you will be paying $100s more DDR2-wise to catch up with plain old DDR.
Click to expand...

really? ddr2 isn't as bad as you think it is.. actually *gasp* higher performance than ddr1 ;)

keep in mind timings are only half of the game. the mhz makes up for it, and provides around the same overall latency, with a LOT more bandwidth. not that it has any effect on overall performance though :p
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
really? ddr2 isn't as bad as you think it is.. actually *gasp* higher performance than ddr1 ;)

keep in mind timings are only half of the game. the mhz makes up for it, and provides around the same overall latency, with a LOT more bandwidth. not that it has any effect on overall performance though :p
Click to expand...


Thanks once again eclipse.:D
 
Sure its generaly faster but I want an upgrade path,aslong as its fast in windows and performs decently whilst gaming I dont care to much.;)
 
s939 has no upgrade path. Since s939's EOL is upon us it would be better to go AM2 for future upgradability. While s939 still performs well, you'll be out of luck and have to pay all over again when you want to upgrade, whereas if you buy AM2 now the next gen processors will still be AM2 compatible - at least that is what AMD is saying ATM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top