x2 939 dual core Cache - 512 vs 1mb ??? why enormous price increase in last 35 days??

D

dubbyah

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
174
well, it's christmas, and i believe it's due time to upgrade this 3200+ to a dual core.


a month ago, i looked on newegg, they had a 4800+ which had a 1mb cache, as opposed to a 4600+ with only a 512..

so i thought, awesome, i'll wait a little bit for the price to drop around christmas.


now i go to check, and it's evidently discontinued. not on newegg, and the only ones on ebay have like 39 bids and are 400 bucks!!! (compared to the 290 they were on newegg a month ago)


this is very very annoying.

i'm not going to am2, i just got this 939 mobo about 8 months ago.


so my question is, does anyone know of a place to get a 4800+ cheaper than on ebay for 400? which seems to me to be a ridiculous price.

and secondly, how important is the 1mb cache vs 512, really? 4600s are still much easier to find than the 4800, and about 130 dollars cheaper, but this will be the last cpu upgrade I get in a while, so i'd prefer to get a 1mb cache, it just seems much more logical...

what do you guys think I should do?


thanks alot
 
hm, that doesn't really answer my question on the actual percievable (and benchmarked) differences between that of a 1mb cache versus a 512 mb cache...

it is a definite consideration, though...


any other advice? perhaps more full-featured?
 
What I have heard is that AMD is going to stop making 1MB L2 for 939 because it's too expensive and resource intensive for them to continue to produce them. AMD is up to their necks producing chips for Dell and the decision on to stop making 1MB L2 for 939 is one of the outcomes of the Dell deal.

On the other hand, the availability of the 939 Opterons looks pretty good and prices are pretty even with the X2 equivalent.
 
No advice where to get one from as I live in Australia

However the Opteron is likely to overclock better.

As to 512 Cache vs 1mb cache, it depends on the program. With some programs the larger cache makes no difference with others it the 1mb cache gives about 5% to 10% more performance. A lot of games get 5 to 10 more FPS with the larger cache.
 
More cache can speed things up by 4-8% in some cases... Like DVD encoding.

For gaming and other tasks, it's generally a 1-2% speed increase.

Opty's overclock better though, so you're really better off with one.
 
Well, unless you do a lot of multitasking or run software that actually takes advantage of two cores, I suggest you just postpone the update.
Because in terms of value for money it would be lousy.
Better to wait a while, then just upgrade the lot (you don't want to be stuck with DDR memory and an outdated motherboard when you have a fast new CPU anyway).
 
Scali2 said:
Well, unless you do a lot of multitasking or run software that actually takes advantage of two cores, I suggest you just postpone the update.
Because in terms of value for money it would be lousy.
Better to wait a while, then just upgrade the lot (you don't want to be stuck with DDR memory and an outdated motherboard when you have a fast new CPU anyway).
Click to expand...
But what If I dont want top of the line and just want a good quick computer. I still think its viable to do an upgrade on 939. For these reasons

1. Its still cheaper than a full upgrade to C2D or AM2.
2.I have a perfectly good mobo ram and what not.
3. For me it would still be a side grade to go to C2D or AM2 because the only thing that would really change would be the Mobo CPU and RAM,
4. Option three would leave me with a perfectly good comp that I couldnt use because I canniblized it to make one that was "faster:"

</rant>

Personally I would grab the Opty 180 its the same thing as the 4800+ and is 299 right now at the Egg. If you want to stay with the X2s then you prob wont be able to tell the difference between the levels of cache unless all you do are synthetic benchmarchs.

Do what you want not what every body else thinks you should
 
DeChache said:
But what If I dont want top of the line and just want a good quick computer. I still think its viable to do an upgrade on 939.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about top of the line, or about being cheap or not.
I just don't think the upgrade is very interesting at this time. It costs more money than it's worth, in my opinion.
 
Scali2 said:
I never said anything about top of the line, or about being cheap or not.
I just don't think the upgrade is very interesting at this time. It costs more money than it's worth, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The upgrade from a 3200 to an opty 170 is actually very interesting if level of interest is proportional to performance increase.

I just went from a FX55 to a 170 because I did not want to through out another $800+ to move from AMD 939 to C2D.

I am now able to sufficiently feed my 8800GTS. The upgrade is well worth it!
 
The performance difference between 512kb and 1mb L2 cache has been debated long and hard here for many, many months and the bottom line is that there is little performance difference in day to day functions between the 2. The difference won't be noticable at all. The reason for that is that AMD's memory controllers are on the cpu die whereas Intel's are off-die and require a pathway from the mem controller to the cpu, thus making the lines of communication longer and thus slower. This is overcome by larger L2 cache sizes. In intel systems there is a noticeable difference between 512kb and 1 mb of L2 cache. Some intel systems use up to 2 mb of L2 cache and Conroe has a 4 mb L2 cache. In Intel systems its necessary to have more L2 cache because of their architecture. On the other hand, AMD's on die mem controller speeds things up very dramatically thereby allowing for a smaller L2 cache which is more efficient. AMD knows this and that is why you see almost all their new cpu's with only 512kb of L2 cache.
If you want to waste your money on a 1mb L2 cache you are certainly free to do so, but don't be fooled into thinking you're going to see a greater performance from it. My 3400+ Venice with 512kb of L2 cache easily outpaces both my 3400+ and 3700+ Clawhammers which have 1 mb of L2 cache. Same goes for the newer cpu's as well - otherwise AMD wouldn't be producing so many new cpu's with only 512kb of L2 cache. They know 512kb is quite sufficient due to their architecture.
 
Scali2 said:
in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I can take that then.

I need a dual core I multitask to the point of bringing my 3200+ to tears most days. I plan on getting the 170. In my expericnce the single core A64 like to do things one at a time they start to chug when you start to throw multiple moderate tasks at them. I have trouble encoding video and surfing the web.

The upgrade from single core is justifible because things are becoming more and more multithreaded and you might as well upgrade now while these chips still have some life in them and before they start to get expensive due to short supply.

To the OP with a good fast link between the memory and the cpu like the AMDs have with Hyper Transport and the intergrated memory controllers. 512k is more then enough. For 1 reason basically memory gets slower as it gets bigger so a 512k is faster then a 1mb cache but the kicker is that you need good memory throughput to make that work. Because the link between the memory is relitivly slow(in terms of cache to cpu time) the larger cache work faster because you can store more things in them and eliminating some of the Memory to cpu bottleneck.

But like I said before AMD has a really good memory subsystem so that is not as much as an issue. I doubt if I put a 4600+ and a 4800+ side by side in identicle computers you couldnt tell the difference unless you ran synthetic benchmarks all day long.
 
BigMacAttack said:
AMD knows this and that is why you see almost all their new cpu's with only 512kb of L2 cache.
Click to expand...

That's one way to look at it.
Another explanation (which I find more plausible) is that 1 mb caches take up too much wafer space, which brings the yields down, and AMD is already having trouble delivering CPUs, now that they have the Dell contract.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.
There are cases where 1 mb cache is a definite advantage (like in my multithreaded MarchingCubes algo, where the difference between caches can give up to 20% more performance), but they are exceptions, not rule.

They still use 1 mb cache in the FX series, because they absolutely need every last drop of performance to try and counter Intels Core2.
 
RAutrey said:
I am now able to sufficiently feed my 8800GTS. The upgrade is well worth it!
Click to expand...

I find that a bit strange though... Why get such a fast videocard and then stick it in an outdated platform (I find $300 quite a lot for an Opteron/4800+ which performs like a C2D of about $200, even if you pair it with the latest chipset/memory... let alone an old 939 platform).
You may have been better off getting a C2D system and a slightly cheaper videocard.
Then again, it all depends on what you do with your PC.
 
Thanks for all the help guys.

The primary reason I am getting an upgrade to a dual core is because I do alot of developing and digital audio work. Obviously I will see an enormous increase in the multitasking capabilities. With audio software like Ableton Live and other DAWs that support dual-cores, you literally double the amount of VSTs (plugins) you're able to run simultaniously.


I'm going to either go with a 4600+ or an Opteron, not sure which yet, but I've definately found out that the 512 vs 1mb doesn't justify the exorbitant price increase due to supply and demand.

I have very good ram, as well, only furthering to the lack of justification of price, if the gap between the l2 is (partially) dependant on ram.


Do you think prices will go down around Christmas time on all processors? Or would I just be better off ordering one now? Or even, in January?
 
Scali2 said:
That's one way to look at it.
Another explanation (which I find more plausible) is that 1 mb caches take up too much wafer space, which brings the yields down, and AMD is already having trouble delivering CPUs, now that they have the Dell contract.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.
There are cases where 1 mb cache is a definite advantage (like in my multithreaded MarchingCubes algo, where the difference between caches can give up to 20% more performance), but they are exceptions, not rule.

They still use 1 mb cache in the FX series, because they absolutely need every last drop of performance to try and counter Intels Core2.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that assessment. Another point I forgot to make is its an economical move as well. 1mb L2 is more expensive than 512kb so what AMD does to compensate is run the 512kb L2 cpu's 200 mhz higher than the 1mb L2 cache cpu's. Whether this is for marketing purposes or balancing for performance is really anyone's guess. Psychology is a big part of marketing. ;)
 
dubbyah said:
Do you think prices will go down around Christmas time on all processors? Or even, in January?
Click to expand...


Yes they will drop soon,as Intel is cutting prices in January,therefore AMD has to as well... :)
 
dubbyah said:
The primary reason I am getting an upgrade to a dual core is because I do alot of developing and digital audio work. Obviously I will see an enormous increase in the multitasking capabilities. With audio software like Ableton Live and other DAWs that support dual-cores, you literally double the amount of VSTs (plugins) you're able to run simultaniously.
Click to expand...

Yea, that would probably be a good reason to go dualcore (I use a Core2 Duo E6600 with Cubase LE in XP x64, and it's lovely). One of those exceptions...
I'd just advise not to get a dualcore that's (much) lower in clockspeed than your current CPU. Else it would just not feel right if some stuff went slower than your old PC, even after you've invested so much money into it.
 
Manny Calavera said:
Yes they will drop soon,as Intel is cutting prices in January,therefore AMD has to as well... :)
Click to expand...
Intel is cutting prices, but they won't be on the Core 2 lineup, there will be some new models though from what I have read.
 
I agree if you buy a dualcore it has to have the same specs in single core "mode" as your singel cpu you wonna upgrade to X2.

In my case I now have the 3800+ singel and the 3800+ doesn't do me much good except for the handy dualcore you always can divide between your two cores in the pre-software task management for each processor so in fact if all the specs where equal it would be a upgrade but the spec are not completely equal. AMD made a little downgrade in de X2 3800+ they are very good in downgrading their CPU's.

Since for me it is the last upgrade on this s939 platform so I don't have to buy anything cause the A8N-SLI has enough features. For now DDR2 is not faster than DDR but it will later.

So in fact buying a X2 on your full capable X2 AMD motherboards isn't such a bad deal.

But I wonna aim high in this final upgrade:

€ 300,- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo (S939, 2x2.4GHz, 1MB, 400MHz

In fact too expensive but just think about it "This x2 4800+ has better specs than two Pentium Xeons" read:
AMD's Athlon 64 X2 processors
The dual-core desktop battle is joined
by Scott Wasson — May 9, 2005

Conclusions:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1

Intel Pentium D 945 (S775, 3.4 GHz, 4MB, 800MHz FSB, 95W, Boxed) € 153,94
(Intel Pentium D 840 (S775, 2x3.2GHz, 2MB, 800MHz FSB, 130W, B... € 347,-)From the test! OR
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (AM2, 2x2.2GHz, 1MB, 400MHz Bus, 89W) € 177,61
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo (S939, 2x2.4GHz, 1MB, 400MHz B... € 279,50 Much cheaper and better!

I''ll wait till January 2007 cause I'll think it prices will be fallen sufficiently enough for a "reasonable" price in my opinon round the Euro 200,-

Two problems:
1- AMD can't cope with the huge demand (With the new deleveries to DELL)
2- The Price of Platina is getting Higher.
Pro's: If the Dollar is staying in it's fall I fly to the states and buy some "cheap"TFT ;) monitors.
 
I dunno... spending nearly 300e on a socket 939 CPU?
You can get Core2-motherboards for 50-75e, which support DDR memory.
For the rest, you can buy a decent Core2, probably an E6400, perhaps even an E6600 if you're lucky.

This will be much faster than a 4800+... especially if you also consider overclocking.
 
The problem is with the first AM2 core motherboards; they are very bad.

Some of them you cannot put even 4GB memory or even 2 Gig I heard......hve to check this.

But anywayz if you'll think you can find an Ok AM2 with the same spec as the AMD A8N-Deluxe and Premium youre a lucky Guy! ;) Or just to damnn good!

Core 2 Duo E6400 (S775, 2x2.13GHz, 2MB, 1066MHz FSB) € 206,90 Lowest price in the Netherlands.

From the test: http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=3
Intel Pentium D 840 EE (S775, 2x3.2GHz, 2MB, 800MHz FSB, 130W..€ 940,81

I know that some of the Pentiums-Celerions more over have great overclocking capabilities but so does my AMD 3800+ for example from 2,4 - 2,73 maybe not impressive but that means a lot on the AMD platform. And often the CPU is not the only bottleneck.

Intels performance doesn't match up to a AMD in the same Pricetag class.

But the Pentium motherboards are often very much value for money, some even have onboard wireless network card for example,Gigabytelan,soundetc.....I admit.

That makes you Think NUHHH? :confused:

Wonna Intel Pentium Cheap ride?

Ok here we go
Dollar 85,- Intel Pentium D 805 or Dollar 67,- Celeron D 356 (4,5 Ghz??)
Dollar 75,- ASUS WLAN P5V-VM DH (wireless lan onboard)
Dollar 47,- VGA XFX 7300 le 128/512mb pci-e
Dollar 25 - Powersupply Raptoxx RT-350 PSP
Dollar 52,- Harddisc -Seagate DiamondMax 20, 160GB (7200rpm, SATA II, 8MB)
Dollar 60,- 2xRAM 30 - 256
_____________________________
Dollar 350,- Loadz of Wireless Lan partydays are here again!
 
Youri Carma said:
I agree if you buy a dualcore it has to have the same specs in single core "mode" as your singel cpu you wonna upgrade to X2.

In my case I now have the 3800+ singel and the 3800+ doesn't do me much good except for the handy dualcore you always can divide between your two cores in the pre-software task management for each processor so in fact if all the specs where equal it would be a upgrade but the spec are not completely equal. AMD made a little downgrade in de X2 3800+ they are very good in downgrading their CPU's.

Since for me it is the last upgrade on this s939 platform so I don't have to buy anything cause the A8N-SLI has enough features. For now DDR2 is not faster than DDR but it will later.

So in fact buying a X2 on your full capable X2 AMD motherboards isn't such a bad deal.

But I wonna aim high in this final upgrade:

€ 300,- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo (S939, 2x2.4GHz, 1MB, 400MHz

In fact too expensive but just think about it "This x2 4800+ has better specs than two Pentium Xeons" read:
AMD's Athlon 64 X2 processors
The dual-core desktop battle is joined
by Scott Wasson — May 9, 2005

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1

Conclusions:
Let's start by talking about the Athlon 64 X2 4200+. This CPU generally offers better performance than its direct competitor from Intel, the Pentium D 840. Most notably, the X2 4200+ doesn't share the Pentium D's relatively weak performance in single-threaded tasks like our 3D gaming benchmarks. The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ also consumes less power, at the system level, than the Pentium D 840—just a little bit at idle (even without Cool'n'Quiet) but over 100W under load. That's a very potent combo, all told.

In fact, the X2 4200+ frequently outperforms the Pentium Extreme Edition 840, which costs nearly twice as much. Thanks to its dual-core config, the X2 4200+ also embarrasses some expensive single-core processors, like the Athlon 64 FX-55 and the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz. Personally, I don't think there's any reason to pay any more for a CPU than the $531 that AMD will be asking for the Athlon 64 X2 4200+.

If you must pay more for some reason, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ will give you the best all-around performance we've ever seen from a "single" CPU. The X2 4800+ beats out the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 virtually across the board, even in tests that use four threads to take best advantage of the Extreme Edition 840's Hyper-Threading capabilities. The difference becomes even more pronounced in single-threaded applications, including games, where the Pentium XE 840 is near the bottom of the pack and the X2 4800+ is constantly near the top. The X2 4800+ also consumes considerably less power, both at idle and under load.

The X2 4800+ gives up 200MHz to its fastest single-core competitor, the Athlon 64 FX-55, but gains most of the performance back in single-threaded apps thanks to AMD's latest round of core enhancements, included in the X2 chips. The X2 4800+ also matches the Opteron 152 in many cases thanks to Socket 939's faster memory subsystem. Remarkably, our test system consumes the same amount of power under load with an X2 4800+ in its socket as it does with an Athlon 64 FX-55, even though the X2 is running two rendering threads and doing nearly twice the work. Amazing.

There's not much to complain about here, but that won't stop me from trying. I would like to see AMD extend the X2 line down two more notches by offering a couple of Athlon 64 X2 variants at 2GHz clock speeds and lower prices. I realize that by asking for this, I may sound like a bit of a freeloader or something, but hey—Intel's doing it. No, the performance picture for Intel's dual-core chips isn't quite so rosy, but the lower-end Pentium D models will make the sometimes-substantial benefits of dual-core CPU technology more widely accessible. If AMD doesn't follow suit, lots of folks will be forced to choose between one fast AMD core or two relatively slower Intel cores. I'm not so sure I won't end up recommending the latter more often than the former.

Beyond that, the giant question looming over the Athlon 64 X2 is about availability, as in, "When can I get one?" Let's hope the answer is sooner rather than later, because these things are sweet. :) :) :)



Intel Pentium D 945 (S775, 3.4 GHz, 4MB, 800MHz FSB, 95W, Boxed) € 153,94
(Intel Pentium D 840 (S775, 2x3.2GHz, 2MB, 800MHz FSB, 130W, B... € 347,-)From the test! OR
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (AM2, 2x2.2GHz, 1MB, 400MHz Bus, 89W) € 177,61
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo (S939, 2x2.4GHz, 1MB, 400MHz B... € 279,50 Much cheaper and better!

I''ll wait till January 2007 cause I'll think it prices will be fallen sufficiently enough for a "reasonable" price in my opinon round the Euro 200,-

Two problems:
1- AMD can't cope with the huge demand (With the new deleveries to DELL)
2- The Price of Platina is getting Higher.
Pro's: If the Dollar is staying in it's fall I fly to the states and buy some "cheap"TFT ;) monitors.
Click to expand...
Why are you posting all this stuff, no one in their right mind would get a Pentium D 8xx derivatives unless it was a Pentium D 805 for cheap, the prices have dropped drmatically on the Pentium D 9xx sequence line.
 
Youri Carma said:
The problem is with the first AM2 core motherboards; they are very bad.

Some of them you cannot put even 4GB memory or even 2 Gig I heard......hve to check this.

But anywayz if you'll think you can find an Ok AM2 with the same spec as the AMD A8N-Deluxe and Premium youre a lucky Guy! ;) Or just to damnn good!

Core 2 Duo E6400 (S775, 2x2.13GHz, 2MB, 1066MHz FSB) € 206,90 Lowest price in the Netherlands.

From the test: http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=3
Intel Pentium D 840 EE (S775, 2x3.2GHz, 2MB, 800MHz FSB, 130W..€ 940,81

I know that some of the Pentiums-Celerions more over have great overclocking capabilities but so does my AMD 3800+ for example from 2,4 - 2,73 maybe not impressive but that means a lot on the AMD platform. And often the CPU is not the only bottleneck.

Intels performance doesn't match up to a AMD in the same Pricetag class.

But the Pentium motherboards are often very much value for money, some even have onboard wireless network card for example,Gigabytelan,soundetc.....I admit.

But again:
If you must pay more for some reason, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ will give you the best all-around performance we've ever seen from a "single" CPU. The X2 4800+ beats out the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 virtually across the board, even in tests that use four threads to take best advantage of the Extreme Edition 840's Hyper-Threading capabilities. The difference becomes even more pronounced in single-threaded applications, including games, where the Pentium XE 840 is near the bottom of the pack and the X2 4800+ is constantly near the top. The X2 4800+ also consumes considerably less power, both at idle and under load.

The X2 4800+ gives up 200MHz to its fastest single-core competitor, the Athlon 64 FX-55, but gains most of the performance back in single-threaded apps thanks to AMD's latest round of core enhancements, included in the X2 chips. The X2 4800+ also matches the Opteron 152 in many cases thanks to Socket 939's faster memory subsystem. Remarkably, our test system consumes the same amount of power under load with an X2 4800+ in its socket as it does with an Athlon 64 FX-55, even though the X2 is running two rendering threads and doing nearly twice the work. Amazing.

That makes you Think NUHHH? :confused:
Click to expand...
Considering the Athlon 64x2 4800+ is now barely equal to the Core 2 Duo E6400 why are you posting all the halibo about the Pentium D 8xx Series, there is no point in considering those processors anymore, they have been completely replaced by the Pentium D 9xx line as well as the Core 2 line.

The issue of the Athlon 64x2 4800+ beating the Pentium EE 840 has no bearing on the here and now as there are currently much superior chips available from the same manufacturer for cheaper and since the Core 2 Duo E6400 is typically compare to the 4600+/5000+ it can hold it's own against the 4800+ with ease and ti's cheaper to boot.
 
Ok reasons:

- Interesting for a lot of people of want to upgrade on their s939 platform without buying all the new stuff (Not possible on the Intelplatform) sorry for you.:p
- The new AM2 are bad so s939 upgrade very interesting als consider the cheap s939 motherboards on the highest level 4xsata,sataII,Gigabytelan,Two onboard LAN etc....
- Gimmi some mailpop here, provide me with a positive before I provide you with a negative. In other words show me some facts.
- Do you hate AMD? ;)
-Why make all those full quotes? Seems a bit silly "Quote" also sufficient enough?
 
Youri Carma said:
Ok reasons:

- Interesting for a lot of people of want to upgrade on their s939 platform without buying all the new stuff (Not possible on the Intelplatform) sorry for you.:p
- The new AM2 are bad so s939 upgrade very interesting als consider the cheap s939 motherboards on the highest level 4xsata,sataII,Gigabytelan,Two onboard LAN etc....
- Gimmi some mailpop here, provide me with a positive before I provide you with a negative. In other words show me some facts.
- Do you hate AMD? ;)
-Why make all those full quotes?
Click to expand...

I really dont understand anything you've said in any of your posts... Barring that, There's really no point spending 300$ on an S939 update...

For about 300$ you can get a new C2D and an ASROCK 775-VSTA board that will use DDR1 RAM and run with a Conroe Processor...

Alot more future proof than the dead S939 socket.

and... What the hell is mailpop?
 
Youri Carma said:
Ok reasons:

- Interesting for a lot of people of want to upgrade on their s939 platform without buying all the new stuff (Not possible on the Intelplatform) sorry for you.:p
- The new AM2 are bad so s939 upgrade very interesting als consider the cheap s939 motherboards on the highest level 4xsata,sataII,Gigabytelan,Two onboard LAN etc....
- Gimmi some mailpop here, provide me with a positive before I provide you with a negative. In other words show me some facts.
- Do you hate AMD? ;)
-Why make all those full quotes? Seems a bit silly "Quote" also sufficient enough?
Click to expand...
I don't hate AMD, and it's not my problem you posted such a long quote in your own post of TechReport, that is what the majority of your post is currently.

Socket AM2's Dual Core run at about the same speed and show no issues from what I can see, given the proper DDR2 memory 667 or higher they run a parity speed or greater then their Socket 939 equivalents.

If you have already a Socket 939 motherboard then Dual Core AMD is an option, if you have anything older then that your should consider upgrading to Intel's Core 2 Duo.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/socket-am2/index.x?pg=8

Here the above shows that the Socket AM2 versions of the 4800+ runs at the same speed compared the 4800+ or greater, as well on Socket AM2 you have access to the 5000+ since the 4800+ has been long discontinued.

Socket AM2 is hardly terrible at this point it's been several months and AMD has a had alot of time to irons any bugs left with this platform.

If your considering a brand new system a Socket 939 system has no upgrade path left regardless of what you buy, so I consider it a poor investment. Intel's will allow you to get Quad Core down the line if you do so desire, as well as faster stock processors.

At least with Socket AM2 you have the possibility of getting K8L/K10 Quad Core down the road unless you want a dead platform of Socket 939.

Pentium D 8xx has no relevance now, that article you quoted is over 1.5 years old now. Both comapnies have released newer and better technology.
 
Well Yourright maybe I've been "tutting my horn" too much, if you catch my drift.

I think Intel catched up also with the powerconsuming issue.

Don't understand why this Hyperthreading is not more efficiently implemented in software also?

I also think Euro 300,- is a crazy amound for a CPU so I'll wait anywayz like I said.

Mailpop= A lot of mail popped into a mailbox....a lot of written reaction....like you did ;)
 
Arcygenical said:
For about 300$ you can get a new C2D and an ASROCK 775-VSTA board that will use DDR1 RAM and run with a Conroe Processor...

Alot more future proof than the dead S939 socket.
Click to expand...

Excellent suggestion. Just for fun, I went to Newegg and put together a E6300 and the ASROCK MB you mentioned. $238.

For that price, you could afford to get DDR2, as well, though you could just use your DDR to get off cheap.

There isn't really a lot of guess work necessary here as far as "what should I buy?" is concerned. If I hadn't already had my CPU and MB, I would be buying this myself. Too bad I didn't see this a month and a half ago.

::Kicks self and vows to always consult the [H] before upgrading::
 
man get an opteron 165, 170 or 175 and be done with it... my 165 clocked at 3.0 is still a very viable gaming machine... it is anything but slow. I get into BF2 games jsut as fast as OCed 3.0+ C2Ds and my framerates are great... I am CPU bottlenecked... my $400 7800gtx is now my bottleneck..

get a 170 OC it and then be happy with it... it might not set a superpi record but it is still good and fast..

I will eventually upgrade but i have only had my rig in my sig for like 6 months.. and the CPU is only 2 months old..

maybe in like a year I will upgrade the whole thing... and in like 3-4 months I will get vista and a DX10 card...
 
Like in my case I would have loved to get an E6300 but that would have meant a new board and ram as well which I could not afford as the most important other upgrade is a decent graphic card (8800gts) shortly. So an Opteron 170 clocked @2.8 (maybe @3.0 later) gives me about stock E6400 performance. Going with the Opty [email protected] (E6400 stock equivalent) means I can get an 8800GTS which together will keep me going for a couple of years.
 
Well you are absolutely 100% rightious brothers.
The X2 3800+ is much too expensive when you look at these specs:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=4 :eek:

I must have lost track somewhere... :eek:

€ 160,- Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 (S775, 2x1.86GHz, 2MB, 1066MHz FSB)
Than you still have € 140 left for a Mobo and Powersupply (The demon X2 3800+ was € 300,- can't believe it now.)

Got my wake up call now leds TnX ! :D

It is true that with a good X2 upgrade we s939 holders don't have to buy all the other stuff but when I look at these specs I wouldn't hesitate anymore the differences are too big. Better for me to wait with the CPU...only maybe a Videocard upgrade running a XFX 6800GT now was thinking about the 7600GTxxx extreme version but even that can wait now. Want to have this card when ET-Quakewar hits the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top