TechSpot

Socket 754 or 939?

By erwin1978
Jan 15, 2006
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I need to build a PC based on AMD of course. Which cpu socket is the way to go, 754 or 939?
    Is it fair to compare Semprons and Athlon 64? Is a Sempron 3400+ equivalent to an Athlon 64 3200+ since both have same clock speeds and cache size? What about Turions? I heard they beat everything and only requires half the watts.

    Is it better to have a 1 MB L2 cache than 512 KB even if the latter has higher clock speed?

    For the CPUs with 1 GHz Hypertransport, I assume that's the fsb, will I need to overclock a DDR400 to 500 MHz to it's Nsync with the fsb.
  2. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 4,617   +82

    Depends on what you want to spend and what you want to do with the CPU.

    I've built AMD and INTEL boxes before, but decided to try out 754 AMD Sempron 64-bit 2600+ and 2800+ they are still cheap low power and are fast in 32-bit XP Pro. I've also tested them as true 64-bit using Windows XP X64-bit WOW! Until drivers are more available for 64-bit, I'll be using them as 32-bit for now.

    If you get the right MOBO you can overclock the CPU to 2.4GHz, other wise you'll be okay with Sempron 64-bit 3400+. Make sure you get the latest relase of this CPU check before you buy. 939 Dual Core is expensive by another 100 bucks more you can get one with a good MOBO. AMD MX Socket is going to blow everything else of the chip market later on though.

    L2 Cache

    128KB
    256KB
    512KB
    1024KB (1MB)
    2048KB (2MB)
    3072KB (3MB)

    You'll notice 1MB L2 Cache more than you would with 512KB L2. 256KB is the min 128 is okay also.

    AMD already has faster L1 Cache not Intel. There are times when the P4 HT is really slow then there are times when AMD 64-bit running on 32-bit OS can be really quick. I've notice that more with the AMD Sempron 64-bit 2800+ than the 2600+. I've just picked up another AMD Sempron 64-bit 2800+.

    For a couple of bucks more you can get the AMD 64-bit with 512KB instead of the 256KB with Sempron 64-bit. To me not much of a difference. FSB 800 MHz with 1600GHz bandwidth feature really makes these CPU quick.

    If price isn't an object then get the AMD with 64-bit and 1MB L2 Cache FSB 800 MHz, but then again might want the FSB 1000 1GHz instead?
  3. PUTALE

    PUTALE Newcomer, in training Posts: 178

    IF you can wait, I would suggest wait till amd release new socket (and new mobo). If you can't and need upgrade now. I would suggest go for 939.

    a
  4. Exscind

    Exscind Newcomer, in training Posts: 38

    It's debatable, really. Sure, waiting for socket 940 would be the smart thing to do in terms of future-proofing your computer. But it comes down to how much money you're willing to shell out and how long you're willing to wait. When socket 940 arrives, no doubt the motherboard and cpu prices will be jacked up to no end. Then the usual wait 3 to 5 months for everything to cool down. From what erwin1978 said, it seems like he wants to build the computer now. If so, I'd try grabbing all the parts now while prices are still low from Christmas/New Years aftersales.
  5. erwin1978

    erwin1978 TechSpot Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 327

    For the A64 with 800 MHz fsb, is it overkill to use DDR500? Will I need to overclock the fsb in order to fully utilize that memory?

    For the A64 with 1 GHz fsb, can I still use DDR400 or will I be downclocking the fsb to 800 MHz to make it work?
  6. LipsOfVenom

    LipsOfVenom Newcomer, in training Posts: 256

    you don't need to 'downclock' in order to utilize the DDR 400 and as for the 800 FSB you'll be fine when using the DDR 500 but the full potential will not be achieved.
  7. Need_a_Dell

    Need_a_Dell Newcomer, in training Posts: 60

    Go for the 939, and dont go sempron, 64 is the way to go. Sempron is the budget chip from AMD. Go for a 939 64 chip :D
  8. kodrutz

    kodrutz TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 145

    Socket 939 all the way, and the Sempron is out of question. Try and get a 3000+ AMD 64 with Venice core, they are great and run really cool.

    Now, you have few options for the mobo, but my choice would head towards an ABIT AN-8 board.
  9. kaymastah

    kaymastah Newcomer, in training Posts: 63

    I agree with kodrutz, by all means, if you can't get opteron (mmmm... yummy) go for athlon. I'd suggest 939 as well, for it seems like this will last longer. I'd wait a little bit longer though to get a better price for the dual core Athlons.

    As to comparison between Intel and AMD, the first one lost the battle IMHO a while ago. AMD chips are much better and they continue to improve - f.ex. they don't heat as much as they used to.
  10. kodrutz

    kodrutz TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 145

    I think that "AMD is hot and unreliable" story was more a myth than reality.
    Why?

    1. I ran my AMD K6/166 without its cooler for 15 minutes some years ago and it didn't die at all, in fact I shut it down when I touched the heatsink and felt it really HOT.

    2. I had a K6-2/450 with a stock cooler which ran very, very cool

    3. Now my T-Bred 1700+@2000+ stays around 30-35 Celsius degrees with a regular cooler, with an Al heatsink, and it runs like this for over 2 years now, I think. Before it got into my hand it ran up to ~2.1Ghz with air cooling and default voltage :)

    Intel lost it a loong time ago...but they have their market share and I don't think they'll die too soon...or maybe they will have the same end as 3dfx did, working too long on an awesome product and dying with it in hand? :)
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.