A
W
Wes Newell
And for that price, they can keep all of them.
A
Anthony
128 bucks isnt alot alot of retail nforce 3 boards are that price. Geez if
128 dollars is alot I am glad I didnt show u how much I paid for my lcd lol
128 dollars is alot I am glad I didnt show u how much I paid for my lcd lol
D
Dee
Anthony said:
Why would you want to get excited about a socket 754 board? If you're
going to invest in a new system, forget 754! AMD is phasing out the 754
pin AMD64 CPUs and getting ready to introduce a dual core 939 pin AMD64.
At this point in time, socket 754 is a dead end street! The only CPUs
for it will be the Semprons.
A
Anthony
if its so dead then they wouldnt be releasing the nforce versions. They know
that alot of people dont wanna put down 500 bucks for a CPU and motherboard
and this is the result. I just gotta shell out half that for motherboard and
video card and with socket 754 cpu's stil lcoming out even with the higher
end amd 64 3400+ we dont got much to worry about till 2007 or so
that alot of people dont wanna put down 500 bucks for a CPU and motherboard
and this is the result. I just gotta shell out half that for motherboard and
video card and with socket 754 cpu's stil lcoming out even with the higher
end amd 64 3400+ we dont got much to worry about till 2007 or so
D
Dee
Anthony said:
All you have to do is keep up with the news on this stuff. The socket
754 is going to be strictly Sempron by the end of this year, no more 754
pin 64-bit Athlons will be developed.
G
General Schvantzkoph
It turns out that the 754s are a lot faster than the 939s due to the
larger cache. I just got a new system with an MSI K8N Neo2 motherboard and
an 3800+(939). I also have a laptop with a 3400+ (754). I've been doing
extensive benchmarking on them and I've had some very surprising results.
Even though the 3800+ has a faster clock (2.4GHz vs 2.2GHz) and a much
faster memory system (dual DDR400 vs single DDR333) it's slower than the
3400+ on CPU bound tasks. I've been running Verilog simulations and Xilinx
place and routes (all on Fedora Core 3 with 2.6.10 kernel). When there is
a lot of IO then the desktop system is slightly faster. But when I'm doing
a purely CPU bound task like a big verilog simulation with no state saving
and no $display statements, the 3400+ is nearly twice as fast. Some of
this may be an peculiar to NCVerilog, I believe that Cadence optimized the
application to take advatage of cache, but even so the performance
difference is huge. The FX versions of the 939 pin part have 1M of cache
but they are very expensive. The 754s with 1M are relatively cheap.
Knowing what I know now I'd get a 754 over a 939.
A
Anthony
socket 754 maybe dead in 6 months but its gonna last till at least 2007
before I need to do another major upgrade. as I said earlier rather spend
only 200-300 then 500-700. and right now I dont feel 939 is worth the money.
When dual processors hit the market maybe then but right now 754 is better
bang for the buck
before I need to do another major upgrade. as I said earlier rather spend
only 200-300 then 500-700. and right now I dont feel 939 is worth the money.
When dual processors hit the market maybe then but right now 754 is better
bang for the buck
R
Roy Coorne
Anthony said:
It's not (yet) on the Asus web site - neither Global nor N.American
nor Germen...
rOy
D
Dee
Roy said:
It was on the Global site yesterday, and appears to still be there today:
http://www.asus.com.tw/products4.aspx?l1=3&l2=14&l3=0&model=454&modelmenu=1
R
Roy Coorne
Dee said:
THX for the link - must be my Mozilla 1.7.3 which didn't show the
products subgroup Motherboards on the Global site;-(
Now I look forward to the chip driver set for this board, for
installing WinXP_x64...
rOy
D
dawg
Well, it may be just a personal choice or an economic one. Whatever, he's
entitled to buy what's available. Do you have any idea how much the 949 dual
chips and mobo's will cost?
entitled to buy what's available. Do you have any idea how much the 949 dual
chips and mobo's will cost?
G
General Schvantzkoph
No one can say for sure but I'd guess that the pricing will be similar to
the FX pricing today.
D
Dorsai
The reasons are simple, socket 939 isnt any faster than S754 in the
majority of app's including gaming. People with current S754 chips like
the 3400 want to use PCI-E so tis makes solid business sense for board
makers. Spend less time reading about the wonders of of 939 and more time
running a 754 system and you'd realise you couldnt tell the difference at
the same clock speeds. Oh and by the way, what makes you think socket 939
is any more "future proof" than S754? AMD already stated dual-core will
require a new socket to handle the added current draw, in other word your
939 will be worthless next year....
majority of app's including gaming. People with current S754 chips like
the 3400 want to use PCI-E so tis makes solid business sense for board
makers. Spend less time reading about the wonders of of 939 and more time
running a 754 system and you'd realise you couldnt tell the difference at
the same clock speeds. Oh and by the way, what makes you think socket 939
is any more "future proof" than S754? AMD already stated dual-core will
require a new socket to handle the added current draw, in other word your
939 will be worthless next year....
B
bozo
hey, the 939 core is the Sempron Xtreme of the future.
<drum roll here>
Hey, these ain't no BX chipsets
N
netx
U¿ytkownik "Dorsai said:
I hear that dual core CPUs will be available starting from socket 939
so we have different informations.
Another benifit is that socket 939 Winchester takes 20W less power as it is
in 90nm technology.
There are no 90nm CPU for socket 754.
Another thing is that FX CPUs are available starting at socket 939.
As new CPUs will appear on market - FX's will be cheaper.
Particulary when faster then FX cpu is available - You don't have to buy
the newest CPU and can try FX which I hope will be cheaper than faster one.
For example I am going to use this platform about 5 ears. Maybe longer.
Because about 3000+ is enough for my particulary needs.
W
Wes Newell
I think there's going to be a lot of disappointed people buying dual core
cpu's. At least until apps start making use of them. And if you think the
FX series of cpu's is expensive, wait til you see the dual core prices.
I don't know why you think there won't be 90nm 754 parts. Check AMDs'
roadmap.
An Athlon 64/FX51 is still $745. Now compare that to a $192 3400+. On
hint. Don't bet on the FX 51.
As it would be for about 90% of people. And since 754 goes up to 3700+.....
If you have to have top speed, or your apps require high bandwidth, then
939 is the choice. If you can live with 90% of the top speed, then 754 is
certainly an alternative. And at up to 1/4 the price, it certainly makes
sense.
D
Dee
Dorsai said:
Then why are 939 pin, dual core Athlon 64s being demonstrated right now?
AMDZone references another site with benchmarks on dual core, 939 pin,
Athlon 64:
http://www.amdzone.net/modules.php?...=article&sid=2380&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
to this page:
http://translate.google.com/transla...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools
There are dual core 939 & 940 pins CPUs being produced, right now.
The versions with increased pin count are related to switching to either
DDR2 or DDR3 memory where more lines are needed.
F
frank
There you go... worthless
You guys go buy those 939 chips and motherboards though