Is Athlon 64 socket AM2 = Socket 939 ? Is Athlon 64 3000+, 3200+, 3500+ Always = Venice core ?

Discussion in 'Windows XP Hardware' started by Michael Hertz, Jan 8, 2007.

  1. I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:

    Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?

    If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future compatible ?

    Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a Venice core
    (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?

    Michael
     
    Michael Hertz, Jan 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Michael Hertz

    Wes Newell Guest

    On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:56:22 +0000, Michael Hertz wrote:

    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?
    >

    No. 939 is discontinued.

    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future
    > compatible ?
    >

    AM2 uses DDR2 memory is the main difference.

    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a
    > Venice core (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?
    >

    No. There are different and newer cores.

    http://www.amdcompare.com

    --
    Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
    http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
     
    Wes Newell, Jan 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. See answers inline...

    "Michael Hertz" <> wrote in message
    news:45a293d5$0$27624$-online.net...
    >I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?

    No. Two different sockets, non-interchangeable. Socket 939 (and 754, to make
    things more interesting) use DDR memory, Socket AM2 uses DDR2 memory. That
    said, there *may* be a motherboard that uses Socket AM2, but also has DDR
    memory slots. Check Asrock offerings.
    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future
    > compatible ?

    As to which is "better", opinions vary. AM2 is the latest, and therefore,
    more "future compatible". I believe AMD has ceased manufacture of Socket 939
    CPU's
    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a
    > Venice core
    > (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?

    No. There are several different cores. check the AMD web site for more info.
    >
    > Michael
    >
     
    Peter van der Goes, Jan 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Re: Is Athlon 64 socket AM2 = Socket 939 ? Is Athlon 64 3000+,3200+, 3500+ Always = Venice core ?

    On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:56:22 +0000, Michael Hertz wrote:

    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?
    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future compatible ?
    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a Venice core
    > (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?
    >
    > Michael


    They aren't the same. AM2 is the new socket, it supports DDR2 RAM, 939 is
    the old socket, it supported DDR RAM. They aren't making 939 parts
    anymore, only AM2s. The 939 parts that are in the channel are old stock.
    For any new system you want an AM2.
     
    General Schvantzkoph, Jan 8, 2007
    #4
  5. Michael Hertz

    Egil Solberg Guest

    Michael Hertz wrote:
    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?


    No. The AM2-socket is the newest of the two. AM2-socket is used for CPUs
    that use DDR2-ram instead of regular DDR. They are not interchangeable.

    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future
    > compatible ?


    socket AM2 is probably dead before you are finished with your socket 939
    cpu, if you choose to buy one of those. Not many socket 939 cpus available.
    The same speed grade cpu will perform similarly if it is designed to use
    DDR2(socket am2) or DDR (socket 939), so you are free to choose.

    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have
    > a Venice core (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?


    can't help you with that.
     
    Egil Solberg, Jan 8, 2007
    #5
  6. On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:56:22 +0000, Michael Hertz wrote:

    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:


    Who isn't.

    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?


    No. The AM2 socket has 940 pins, but is not a Socket 940, which is
    designed for AMD Opterons. Although, both CPUs come in other sockets as
    well.

    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future compatible ?


    Go to http://www.amd.com/ Their information database will answer all
    your questions. Well, most anyway. The most important difference is that
    the AM2 Athlon 64 takes the faster (up to 10.6 GB/sec) DDR2 RAM, while
    the Socket 939 CPU use DDR RAM (up to 6.4 GB/sec).

    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a Venice core
    > (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?


    No, they don't. My Athlon 64 3200+, which I just bought a week ago, is
    identified as "Orleans" and is rated at 62 watts. It fits the AM2 socket.
    Venice Athlon 64 fit sockets 939 and 754.

    Stef
     
    Stefan Patric, Jan 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Michael Hertz

    DRS Guest

    "Michael Hertz" <> wrote in message
    news:45a293d5$0$27624$-online.net
    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?


    No. Sockets are the things the CPU plugs into on the motherboard and they
    can have different sizes and number of pins. Socket 939 has 939 pins, AM2
    has 940 pins (although it's not the same as AMDs socket 940 which also has
    940 pins).

    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future
    > compatible ?


    AMD put both the CPU itself and the memory controller on their CPU dies.
    This differs from Intel which keeps the CPU and memory controller separate.

    When AMD made the switch from supporting DDR RAM to DDR2 RAM they changed
    the memory controller but not the CPU architecture. That's why you can
    have, for example, a socket 939 X2 4600 (DDR) and a socket AM2 X2 4600
    (DDR2). There is little noticeable performance difference between them.

    AM2 is AMD's current socket for desktop PCs. They are planning on releasing
    the successor to AM2, AM3, early this year. AM3s will fit in AM2 sockets
    but incorporate CPU improvements.

    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have
    > a Venice core (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?


    No, although these days it would be uncommon to find a Winchester or
    Newcastle core on the shelves. Because AMD don't distinguish cores in their
    product codes you need to rely on the retailer to do that. If in doubt ask
    the retailer to confirm the core.
     
    DRS, Jan 9, 2007
    #7
  8. Michael Hertz

    John Guest

    On 08 Jan 2007 18:56:22 GMT, (Michael Hertz) wrote:

    >I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    >Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?

    No, different socket & not interchangeable
    >
    >If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future compatible ?

    939 is on way out, so AM2 probably way to go
    >
    >Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a Venice core
    >(= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?

    Cant answer that one, I dont know :(
    >
    >Michael
     
    John, Jan 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Michael Hertz

    No Spam Guest

    Re: Is Athlon 64 socket AM2 = Socket 939 ? Is Athlon 64 3000+, 3200+,3500+ Always = Venice core ?

    Michael Hertz wrote:
    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?
    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future compatible ?
    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a Venice core
    > (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?
    >
    > Michael


    AM2 is completely different. AM2 requires DDR2 memory, and is NOT
    compatible with the DDR memory used with Socket 939 processors.

    939 is dying. AM2 is definitely the way to go for the future. Socket
    AM2 also has lower-power, more energy efficient processors available.

    Not all Athlon 64 CPUs have Venice cores. You have some Socket 754
    Winchester cores, etc. Look carefully before you buy.
     
    No Spam, Jan 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Michael Hertz

    SpamBox Guest

    "Michael Hertz" <> wrote in message
    news:45a293d5$0$27624$-online.net...
    >I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?
    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future
    > compatible ?
    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a
    > Venice core
    > (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?
    >
    > Michael
    >


    Probably the biggest difference between 939 and AM2 is that 939 uses DDR ram
    and AM2 uses DDR2. Socket 939 processors are also no longer manufactured by
    AMD. They have stopped production of this socket and are focusing on their
    AM2 socket. Even socket 754's days are numbered. If you have a 939
    motherboard, get a processor upgrade now because stocks will be running out.


    Glenbo
     
    SpamBox, Jan 10, 2007
    #10
  11. Michael Hertz

    joseph2k Guest

    Michael Hertz wrote:

    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?
    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future
    > compatible ?
    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a
    > Venice core (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?
    >
    > Michael


    Absolutely not. Not physically compatible. AM2 is 940 pins.

    Socket 939 is nearing end of life for new design.

    See AMD website for this. Yes it is there. But only in terms of power
    dissipation.

    --
    JosephKK
    Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
    --Schiller
     
    joseph2k, Jan 11, 2007
    #11
  12. Re: Is Athlon 64 socket AM2 = Socket 939 ? Is Athlon 64 3000+, 3200+,3500+ Always = Venice core ?

    Michael Hertz wrote:
    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?
    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future compatible ?
    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a Venice core
    > (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?
    >
    > Michael
    >

    Socket 939 is obsolete. It works with DDR. AM2 is the current socket,
    and works with DDR2.

    Socket 939 is no longer in production, and it will become hard to get soon.

    Tom
     
    Nicole & Tom Guymer, Jan 14, 2007
    #12
  13. Michael Hertz

    don't look Guest

    Nope.AM2 is a new socket and uses DDR2 ram. 939 is older and uses DDR1 ram.
    And,no there are different cores for those speeds of CPU.

    "Michael Hertz" <> wrote in message
    news:45a293d5$0$27624$-online.net...
    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?
    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future

    compatible ?
    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a

    Venice core
    > (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?
    >
    > Michael
    >
     
    don't look, Jan 18, 2007
    #13
  14. Michael Hertz

    hyc Guest

    Re: Is Athlon 64 socket AM2 = Socket 939 ? Is Athlon 64 3000+, 3200+, 3500+ Always = Venice core ?

    Michael Hertz wrote:
    > I am a bit confused about the AMD naming:
    >
    > Is the socket AM2 (for Athlon 64 CPUs) the same as Socket 939 ?


    No, otherwise they would not have bothered to change the name.
    >
    > If not: What are the differences / which is better resp. more future compatible ?


    Socket939 uses 939 pins. SocketAM2 uses 940 pins. CPUs made for
    Socket939 have DDR memory controllers. CPUs made for SocketAM2 have
    DDR2 memory controllers. From a technical perspective, it's debatable
    whether one is better than the other, although typically DDR2 has
    higher latency than DDR. From a practical perspective, Socket939 was
    discontinued last month, so obviously only AM2 has any future.
    >
    > Do Athlon 64 CPUs with the labels 3000+ or 3200+ or 3500+ ALWAYS have a Venice core
    > (= a core with low (67 Watt) power consumption) ?


    No. There are still A64 3000+ Winchester cores floating around out
    there, for example.
    --
    -- Howard Chu
    Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
    Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc
    OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/
     
    hyc, Jan 20, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brother Numepsy

    Windows XP Pro and AMD Athlon 3200+ Problems at FSB 200 MHZ

    Brother Numepsy, Aug 27, 2004, in forum: Windows XP Hardware
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    238
  2. Guest

    single core vs dual core

    Guest, Aug 12, 2005, in forum: Windows XP Hardware
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    172
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
    Aug 14, 2005
  3. Guest

    assign mgmt process to one core of dual core

    Guest, Jan 26, 2006, in forum: Windows XP Hardware
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    217
    Bob I
    Jan 26, 2006
  4. Paolo Severin
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    487
    DaveW
    Dec 28, 2006
  5. Kappa
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,382
Loading...

Share This Page