Which one is the best one?

I got this...
AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
and
ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd

I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
(almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
that as more feature?

For now i'm one a socket a, a 2600 xp and i would like to move to one
of these two. Also i've read that 3200xp compare to a 280064xp is
almost the same thing in terme of speed??? It's less expensive and it
would be maybe wiser for a gamer like me huhh huhh! ( i would
overclock it to a 3400 ) But again it's the socket that i can't figure
out...

:-L



I've base my compare with this little program : uamd.exe
uAMDtool
Universal AMD Tool v1.0

The 939 MB would prepare you for your upgrade to the FX chip when the prices
come down.

Marcus

"DDC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Which one is the best one?
>
> I got this...
> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
> and
> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
>
> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
> that as more feature?
>
> For now i'm one a socket a, a 2600 xp and i would like to move to one
> of these two. Also i've read that 3200xp compare to a 280064xp is
> almost the same thing in terme of speed??? It's less expensive and it
> would be maybe wiser for a gamer like me huhh huhh! ( i would
> overclock it to a 3400 ) But again it's the socket that i can't figure
> out...
>
> :-L
>
>
>
> I've base my compare with this little program : uamd.exe
> uAMDtool
> Universal AMD Tool v1.0

939, nothing else, this is the upcoming future.

DDC wrote:
> Which one is the best one?
>
> I got this...
> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
> and
> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
>
> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
> that as more feature?

Both are fine cpus. Four A64 at around that speed grade exist:
A64 3400+, 1MB, 2.2Ghz, s754 (130nm, clawhammer)
A64 3400+, 512KB, 2.4Ghz, s754 (130nm, newcastle)
A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (130nm, newcastle)
A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (90nm, winchester)

If you're going to get a socket 939 cpu, I would not recommend the older
newcastle chip. Winchester is very slightly faster, runs quite a bit
cooler (even the Newcastle is far easier to cool quietly than a P4
prescott though) and is not really more expensive, so there is no point
in getting the newcastle.
The socket 939 cpu 3500+ rating is not really completely justified imho.
There are quite a few cases where the 3400+ socket 754 cpu is faster
(especially the 512KB 2.4Ghz version, which tends to be slightly faster
than the 1MB 2.2Ghz version overall).
However, socket 939 is clearly the more "future-proof" version. If
you're going that route, I'd recommend a PCI-Express board to go along
with it.

Roland

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:56:17 +0100, Roland Scheidegger
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>DDC wrote:
>> Which one is the best one?
>>
>> I got this...
>> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
>> and
>> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
>>
>> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
>> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
>> that as more feature?
>
>Both are fine cpus. Four A64 at around that speed grade exist:
>A64 3400+, 1MB, 2.2Ghz, s754 (130nm, clawhammer)
>A64 3400+, 512KB, 2.4Ghz, s754 (130nm, newcastle)
>A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (130nm, newcastle)
>A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (90nm, winchester)
>
>If you're going to get a socket 939 cpu, I would not recommend the older
>newcastle chip. Winchester is very slightly faster, runs quite a bit
>cooler (even the Newcastle is far easier to cool quietly than a P4
>prescott though) and is not really more expensive, so there is no point
>in getting the newcastle.
>The socket 939 cpu 3500+ rating is not really completely justified imho.
>There are quite a few cases where the 3400+ socket 754 cpu is faster
>(especially the 512KB 2.4Ghz version, which tends to be slightly faster
>than the 1MB 2.2Ghz version overall).
>However, socket 939 is clearly the more "future-proof" version. If
>you're going that route, I'd recommend a PCI-Express board to go along
>with it.
>
>Roland


Thankx for the reply.

Yep pci-e is imo a must with it's sli technologie also that it new and
that it not a common tech, so for now pci-e video card are cheap. Ie:
the fx6600 gt 128mb. + used in pair it would be nice to posses this.
But for now ($$$) i think i will stick with my 9800pro from ati, it
has done a pretty good job in hl2 ut2204demo and need for speed
underground.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:56:17 +0100, Roland Scheidegger
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>DDC wrote:
>> Which one is the best one?
>>
>> I got this...
>> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
>> and
>> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
>>
>> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
>> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
>> that as more feature?
>
>Both are fine cpus. Four A64 at around that speed grade exist:
>A64 3400+, 1MB, 2.2Ghz, s754 (130nm, clawhammer)
>A64 3400+, 512KB, 2.4Ghz, s754 (130nm, newcastle)
>A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (130nm, newcastle)
>A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (90nm, winchester)
>
>If you're going to get a socket 939 cpu, I would not recommend the older
>newcastle chip. Winchester is very slightly faster, runs quite a bit
>cooler (even the Newcastle is far easier to cool quietly than a P4
>prescott though) and is not really more expensive, so there is no point
>in getting the newcastle.
>The socket 939 cpu 3500+ rating is not really completely justified imho.
>There are quite a few cases where the 3400+ socket 754 cpu is faster
>(especially the 512KB 2.4Ghz version, which tends to be slightly faster
>than the 1MB 2.2Ghz version overall).
>However, socket 939 is clearly the more "future-proof" version. If
>you're going that route, I'd recommend a PCI-Express board to go along
>with it.
>
>Roland

I wouldn't worry too much about future proof, they are doing all they
can to make everything obsolete as soon as possible. but....

I'd probably recommend a 939 and a PCI express also. Went through the
obsolete video card thing with the old local bus video a long time ago
and it's ugly when you can't get a video card for your board any more.

However, if you go low ball, you can get a pretty good motherboard
cheap and update it in the future.

I think it depends on your finances, but personally I wouldn't want to
buy a $170 motherboard any more.

My current motherboard is an Aopen AK86-L socket 754 and it's going
for $64 at new egg. It won't overclock, but it's well made and rock
solid. Being 64bit, it'll run linux for a long long time after you've
upgraded your main box.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...137-042&depa=0

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:21:14 -0800, gerry <gerry_m@spam_this.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:56:17 +0100, Roland Scheidegger
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>DDC wrote:
>>> Which one is the best one?
>>>
>>> I got this...
>>> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
>>> and
>>> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
>>>
>>> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
>>> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
>>> that as more feature?
>>
>>Both are fine cpus. Four A64 at around that speed grade exist:
>>A64 3400+, 1MB, 2.2Ghz, s754 (130nm, clawhammer)
>>A64 3400+, 512KB, 2.4Ghz, s754 (130nm, newcastle)
>>A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (130nm, newcastle)
>>A64 3500+, 512KB, 2.2Ghz, s939 (90nm, winchester)
>>
>>If you're going to get a socket 939 cpu, I would not recommend the older
>>newcastle chip. Winchester is very slightly faster, runs quite a bit
>>cooler (even the Newcastle is far easier to cool quietly than a P4
>>prescott though) and is not really more expensive, so there is no point
>>in getting the newcastle.
>>The socket 939 cpu 3500+ rating is not really completely justified imho.
>>There are quite a few cases where the 3400+ socket 754 cpu is faster
>>(especially the 512KB 2.4Ghz version, which tends to be slightly faster
>>than the 1MB 2.2Ghz version overall).
>>However, socket 939 is clearly the more "future-proof" version. If
>>you're going that route, I'd recommend a PCI-Express board to go along
>>with it.
>>
>>Roland
>
>I wouldn't worry too much about future proof, they are doing all they
>can to make everything obsolete as soon as possible. but....
>
>I'd probably recommend a 939 and a PCI express also. Went through the
>obsolete video card thing with the old local bus video a long time ago
>and it's ugly when you can't get a video card for your board any more.
>
>However, if you go low ball, you can get a pretty good motherboard
>cheap and update it in the future.
>
>I think it depends on your finances, but personally I wouldn't want to
>buy a $170 motherboard any more.
>
>My current motherboard is an Aopen AK86-L socket 754 and it's going
>for $64 at new egg. It won't overclock, but it's well made and rock
>solid. Being 64bit, it'll run linux for a long long time after you've
>upgraded your main box.
>
>http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...137-042&depa=0
>


If I was building today I'd try a 90nm (939) 3000+ or a 3500+.

..09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2242
The 3500+ and the 3000+ (90nm) both topped out at about 2.6GHz with
default or modestly increased CPU voltage and air cooling.

Got a VNF3-250 here, stable up to 240MHz bus. $76 at newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...152-043&depa=0

Happy Holidays,
Ed
--
Chaintech VNF3-250 / BIOS 10-19-2004
Athlon 64 3200+ (newcastle) / 2x512 Ballistix PC4000
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB / Creative Labs Audigy 2
Seagate 160GB 8MB PATA100 / WD 120GB 8MB PATA100
NEC 8x DVDRW 2500A / LiteOn 52x CDRW 5238S
Windows XP Pro SP2 / Antec SX-1040BII(400W)

The main difference of the two is Memory , 939 supports the dual
channel DDR , but 754 only supports single channel.
For K8's 800HTL , dual channel is the best choice , otherwise the
memory will be the bottleneck .

and now we r designin a new product with ATI RS480 for 939 ,
waiting us ？^&^

DDC wrote:
> Which one is the best one?
>
> I got this...
> AMD ATHLON64 3500+ (939 PINS) 364,00 $ cnd
> and
> ATHLON 64 3400+ (754 PINS) 1MB for 300$ cnd
>
> I would be tend to think that these two are clocked at the same speed
> (almost)... The only difference that i see is the socket. Is there one
> that as more feature?
>
> For now i'm one a socket a, a 2600 xp and i would like to move to one
> of these two. Also i've read that 3200xp compare to a 280064xp is
> almost the same thing in terme of speed??? It's less expensive and it
> would be maybe wiser for a gamer like me huhh huhh! ( i would
> overclock it to a 3400 ) But again it's the socket that i can't figure
> out...
>
> :-L
>
>
>
> I've base my compare with this little program : uamd.exe
> uAMDtool
> Universal AMD Tool v1.0

Just bought an Athlon 3500+ S939, A8N-SLI, WinXP Pro, 1 Gig DDR400 ram,
SATA-NCQ 120gig HDD, Winfast 6600GT PCIe, and Antec Sonata TruePower
380. Runs great. Should keep me happy for a year or two and in 6 months
I can throw in another 6600GT to keep up with the latest games.

Ron