939 or 754(?) pin CPU.

[Donald McTrevor]

I am thinking of a new PC but it is 754 pin (appprox I forget).

It is a 754 pin not 939 and I am worried I will struggle to upgrade
it futher, will it take a duel core chip for instance?

Or anyone know of a similar product which is 939 pin?
(AMD not INTEL).

This is the PC (i am in the UK)

http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/sto...ccgaddfejgdffjcflgceggdhhmdfhl.0&page=Product
&sku=138538&category_oid=-20732&fm=15&sm=3&tm=1

 

[Donald McTrevor]

I am thinking of a new PC but it is 754 pin (appprox I forget).

It is a 754 pin not 939 and I am worried I will struggle to upgrade
it futher, will it take a duel core chip for instance?

Or anyone know of a similar product which is 939 pin?
(AMD not INTEL).

This is the PC (i am in the UK)

http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/sto...ccgaddfejgdffjcflgceggdhhmdfhl.0&page=Product
&sku=138538&category_oid=-20732&fm=15&sm=3&tm=1

Hmm... Just to answer my own question, I read elsewhere that
the 939 will probably be as much of a 'dead end' as the 754 especialy
when you consider how long I go before an upgrade
(I have a Cyrix II processor about 266mhz, 66mhz bus),
so I guess by the time I get round to upgrading my new system
even the 939 will be ancient history.
I was rather annoyed that I can't upgrade my current PC's CPU
as it was the end of the road as far as the motherboard was concerned.

I guess that is a fairly commom experience? I wouldn't know
as this is my first and only PC.

So is there much life left in socket 754?
A processor would have to be twice as fast to be worthwhile
up grading it. My new machine will be about 20 times faster
than what I currently have so it should keep me going for a while
( Ihope!!!).

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Hmm... Just to answer my own question, I read elsewhere that
the 939 will probably be as much of a 'dead end' as the 754 especialy
when you consider how long I go before an upgrade
(I have a Cyrix II processor about 266mhz, 66mhz bus),
so I guess by the time I get round to upgrading my new system
even the 939 will be ancient history.
I was rather annoyed that I can't upgrade my current PC's CPU
as it was the end of the road as far as the motherboard was concerned.

I guess that is a fairly commom experience? I wouldn't know
as this is my first and only PC.

So is there much life left in socket 754?
A processor would have to be twice as fast to be worthwhile
up grading it. My new machine will be about 20 times faster
than what I currently have so it should keep me going for a while
( Ihope!!!).

CPU upgrades in the same socket are rarely worth it. To get a noticeable
speed increase you want to at double a systems performance, preferably you
it should be 3 or 4 times faster. Usually those kinds of increases require
a new socket to accommodate the increased memory bandwidth and power
requirements of next generation CPU. We have an exception to this rule at
the moment, the dual core Athlon 64s fit the same 939 pin socket as the
single core Athlon 64s so it's possible to double the performance (for
some workload types) with a CPU upgrade. I think that this is a unique
moment in history that won't be repeated.

As a general rule of thumb the only thing that you should plan on
upgrading over the life of a system is the RAM and the disks. Buy a system
that you think will meet your needs for a reasonable amount of time and
then plan to replace the entire thing when the time comes.

In your case absolutely anything that you buy will be screaming fast
compared to the antique that you have now. The socket 754 Athlon 64s are a
great choice if you are looking for the best price/performance. I'd
recommend a 3400+ with 1M of cache if that's the way you want to go. I
think they offer two versions of the 3400+, a faster clocked version with
1/2M and a slower clocked version with 1M. Cache size is much more
important than clock speed so make sure that you get the 1M version.

If you want to buy a system with the longest lifetime then get an Athlon
64 X2 4400+ system. The 4400+ is a dual core processor, each with 1M of
cache. Essentially it's two 3400+s on a chip (same clock speed, same
amount of cache per processor, same memory bandwidth per processor). Dual
processor systems feel snappier then single processor systems even though
single threaded applications won't run any faster. Even if you don't have
any multi-threaded applications an operating system has a lot of things
going on simultaneously so you'll some benefit from the second core
immediately. As more and more applications are optimized for multiple
processors you a greater benefit. Expect to pay about $450 more for a
4400+ system vs a 3400+.

 

[Donald McTrevor]

CPU upgrades in the same socket are rarely worth it. To get a noticeable
speed increase you want to at double a systems performance, preferably you
it should be 3 or 4 times faster. Usually those kinds of increases require
a new socket to accommodate the increased memory bandwidth and power
requirements of next generation CPU. We have an exception to this rule at
the moment, the dual core Athlon 64s fit the same 939 pin socket as the
single core Athlon 64s so it's possible to double the performance (for
some workload types) with a CPU upgrade. I think that this is a unique
moment in history that won't be repeated.

As a general rule of thumb the only thing that you should plan on
upgrading over the life of a system is the RAM and the disks. Buy a system
that you think will meet your needs for a reasonable amount of time and
then plan to replace the entire thing when the time comes.

In your case absolutely anything that you buy will be screaming fast
compared to the antique that you have now. The socket 754 Athlon 64s are a
great choice if you are looking for the best price/performance. I'd
recommend a 3400+ with 1M of cache if that's the way you want to go. I
think they offer two versions of the 3400+, a faster clocked version with
1/2M and a slower clocked version with 1M. Cache size is much more
important than clock speed so make sure that you get the 1M version.

If you want to buy a system with the longest lifetime then get an Athlon
64 X2 4400+ system. The 4400+ is a dual core processor, each with 1M of
cache. Essentially it's two 3400+s on a chip (same clock speed, same
amount of cache per processor, same memory bandwidth per processor). Dual
processor systems feel snappier then single processor systems even though
single threaded applications won't run any faster. Even if you don't have
any multi-threaded applications an operating system has a lot of things
going on simultaneously so you'll some benefit from the second core
immediately. As more and more applications are optimized for multiple
processors you a greater benefit. Expect to pay about $450 more for a
4400+ system vs a 3400+.

Yes there is always something faster justaround the corner or at least
for more money anyway. Buying at the top of the range is not really for
me though your tend to pay big bucks for not such a huge increase in
performance.
I would have been happy with a semperon a few months ago untill
the athlon 64 started dropping into my 'price comfort zone'

Thing is I looked at the prices for 754 and 939 processors and
motherboards and there didn't seem much difference.(if any) so I
am disappointed I can't find such a system for the same price.
I would imagine in say 3 years time I could pick up that
64 X2 4400+ for a fraction of its current price.

The system I was thinking of buying was a Athlon 64 3200
Newcastle which seems pretty fast according to this table,
which doesn't cover duel core processors (I think).
If it was a 939 it would be ideal for me. I had to email
the manufacturer for some of the info as retailers don't tend to
supply it.
Another thing is whether it is 90nm or 130nm (I think its 130,
obviously) the 90nm consumes less power I believe.

It can get awefully omplicated deciding what to get, by the time
I have found the relevant infomation (and comprehended it)
prices have dropped and something else is on the horizon.

I should just buy it I guess, as is should be more than
adaquate for my needs, currently anyway.
My current system is actually fine most of the time
except it can't play some .wmv and other video files
and it is a real struggle for it to cope with playing two
poker tables at the same time. Mind you I am not very good
at playing two tables either!! Sometimes one is a struggle!!
Also some multitasking is also a problem.

 

[kony]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:45:48 -0400, General Schvantzkoph

We have an exception to this rule at
the moment, the dual core Athlon 64s fit the same 939 pin socket as the
single core Athlon 64s so it's possible to double the performance (for
some workload types) with a CPU upgrade. I think that this is a unique
moment in history that won't be repeated.

That is ridiculous.

Almost every socket that's come along in the past 8 years
has had the option to nearly double _actual_ performance
with a CPU upgrade for less than $100. The proposed upgrade
to dual core A64 will (on average) come nowhere near double
actual performance and cost significantly more than $100.

The unique moment in history is that performance has never
been higher, but that the benefit from and cost for
upgrading hasn't been such a bad ratio in the past 10 years.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:45:48 -0400, General Schvantzkoph



That is ridiculous.

Almost every socket that's come along in the past 8 years
has had the option to nearly double _actual_ performance
with a CPU upgrade for less than $100. The proposed upgrade
to dual core A64 will (on average) come nowhere near double
actual performance and cost significantly more than $100.

The unique moment in history is that performance has never
been higher, but that the benefit from and cost for
upgrading hasn't been such a bad ratio in the past 10 years.

I strongly disagree. Even when the socket remains the same there are
generally chipset or motherboard changes to go from a first generation to
a second generation part. For example the motherboards that were current
when the Athlon XP 1600+ was state of the art can't take a part faster
than a 2200+, hardly a worthwhile upgrade.

 

[Cuzman]

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

" To get a noticeable speed increase you want to at double a systems
performance, preferably you it should be 3 or 4 times faster. "

So everyone should just upgrade their systems when there is a 4x
performance increase? That's the stupidest thing I've read on usenet in
a while.


" I think that this is a unique moment in history that won't be
repeated. "

How about the time when they start releasing quad-core CPUs, all clocked
well below the highest dual-core CPU?


" As a general rule of thumb the only thing that you should plan on
upgrading over the life of a system is the RAM and the disks. "

Maybe you should write to AMD and Intel, telling them to disband their
retail CPU markets. Tell them to supply CPUs as OEM parts to
motherboard manufacturers only. Please post the replies you get from
them on usenet.


" Cache size is much more important than clock speed so make sure that
you get the 1M version. "

Not to everyone it isn't.


" The 4400+ is a dual core processor, each with 1M of cache.
Essentially it's two 3400+s on a chip (same clock speed, same amount of
cache per processor, same memory bandwidth per processor). "

Each core on the socket 939 4400+ does have the same clock speed, L2
cache and multiplier as a socket 754 3400+, but the dual-channel
capabilities put the 4400+ above the socket 754 3400+ in single-threaded
applications. It is actually the socket 939 3700+ that has the
aforementioned qualities of the 4400+, and is given the more
distinguished PR rating because of the dual-channel capabilities.
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-amd-athlon-64-microprocessors

 

[Random Person]

Hi Donald. I'm in the UK too. Don't buy your system ready built, you
get much better value for money (and control over the hardware) if you
build it yourself.

If you let us know your budget (post it here or send me an email), we
will be able to help you piece together a decent system.

 

[Donald McTrevor]

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

" To get a noticeable speed increase you want to at double a systems
performance, preferably you it should be 3 or 4 times faster. "

So everyone should just upgrade their systems when there is a 4x
performance increase? That's the stupidest thing I've read on usenet in
a while.

Yes wait untill you can get a 20X increase, like me :O)

" I think that this is a unique moment in history that won't be
repeated. "

How about the time when they start releasing quad-core CPUs, all clocked
well below the highest dual-core CPU?

I am thinking that this may well be the way things go, ie 4 core
the 8 core maybe similar to X2 X4 X8 cdroms etc...

" As a general rule of thumb the only thing that you should plan on
upgrading over the life of a system is the RAM and the disks. "

Maybe you should write to AMD and Intel, telling them to disband their
retail CPU markets. Tell them to supply CPUs as OEM parts to
motherboard manufacturers only. Please post the replies you get from
them on usenet.


" Cache size is much more important than clock speed so make sure that
you get the 1M version. "

Not to everyone it isn't.

Horses for courses. everyone has different requirements.
A fast CPU is not great help if the data if travelling on the
slow bus from the main memory.

 

[Random Person]

Further notes:
I pieced together a computer of equivalent specs to yours for £400
excl VAT, compared to Curry's £500. I bet others could beat it
price-wise with a bit more effort. Be aware that your audio/graphics
processors appear to be integrated into your motherboard, which means
your computer will slow down when it is playing music or displaying
graphics (as opposed to having a separate, dedicated card).

Also, as you appear to be a computer user who does not require a high
powered system, you could probably build a much cheaper platform using
the AMD Sempron processors.

 

[Donald McTrevor]

Hi Donald. I'm in the UK too. Don't buy your system ready built, you
get much better value for money (and control over the hardware) if you
build it yourself.

If you let us know your budget (post it here or send me an email), we
will be able to help you piece together a decent system.

I am not actually sure if it actually true that it is cheaper to build it
yourself anymore.
I was looking at an athlon 64 system (link in my original post)
for £500 inc monitor TFT.
For example buying the PC and monitor seperately costs a staggering
£50 more!!!
That is prehaps not the best example but when I started adding up the
prices of the seperate components at PC World, it didn't look like
I would be making much of a saving, if any. It looked lilke it might
well cost considerable more.
However I may stand to be corrected as I may not have been
comparing like with like.

Anyway here is the spec:-

AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3200+

512mb DDR RAM

Dual Layer DVD ReWriter drive

160Gb Hard drive

PROVIEW 15" TFT MONITOR

AMD Athlon 64 processor 3200

Windows XP Home Edition Operating-System

512 mb RAM Memory

160 Gb Hard Disk Capacity

DVD Drive and DVD Re-writer

Processor Type AMD Athlon 64 processor 3200
Clock-Speed Not Specified
Front Side BUS Not Specified
Cache Not Specified
Operating-System Windows XP Home Edition
RAM Memory 512 mb
Hard Disk Capacity 160 Gb
Optical Drive 1 DVD Drive and DVD Re-writer
Optical Drive 2 Not Specified
Plug In Removable Hard Drive No
Built-in TV Tuner Not Specified
Built-in Digital TV Tuner No
Built-in Radio Tuner Not Specified
Remote Control No
802.11g Wireless Network Ready No
Graphics Memory 128 MB mb
Graphics Description SIS Mirage2 Graphics(VGA port)
Sound Card Integrated 5.1 sound solution
Soundcard included No
Speakers Included Not Specified
Media Card Reader 9-In-1
Built-In HP Docking Station No
No of USB connections 7
No of PCI Slots 3
No. of Firewire Connections 2
Keyboard Yes
Wireless Keyboard and Mouse No
Mouse Yes
Weight 14.5 kg
Height 500 mm
Width 300 mm
Depth 600 mm
Network LAN 10/100 BT Network Interface
Software Titles Included WORKS 8.0
Delivery Details


For delivery information on this and other products please click here
Operating System


Windows XP
Microsoft® Windows® XP is the next version of the Windows operating system.
Windows XP puts the exciting experiences of the digital age at your
fingertips. From digital photos, music, and video to building a home
network, Windows XP brings you into the digital age with ease. Built on the
solid foundation of Windows 2000, Windows XP also sets the new standard in
efficient and dependable computing. A new visual design, reliable Windows
engine, and new Internet security features combine with capabilities for
sharing your computer, to give you the most dependable Windows operating
system yet.

 

[Random Person]

Hi Donald. Yes, the first thing I did when you posted the link is check
out the system

Here is my equivalent system:

AMD (Clawhammer) Athlon 64 Bit 3200/1 Mb L2 cache 754Pin CPU OEM
£92.35

Motherboard 800FSB DDR400 8xAGP USB2.0 £27.22

Seagate 160GB HDD - OEM £43.99

512MB DDR 400MHz PC3200 CL=3 Memory Module £26.59

LG 52x32x52x16x CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo Drive Black - OEM £17.85

Midi Tower Case in Beige with 2.0 USB/Audio and 350w PSU £13.21

CTX 15" TFT (3 Years Warranty) £99.98

OEM Windows XP Home Edition SP2 - 1Pk £50.68

ATI Radeon 9200 128MB DDR DVI TV-Out Retail Box £18.71

Cart Total: £390.58 (excl. VAT)

I would however shop around from different retailers. The one I put the
pieces together from are not exactly known for their glowing aftersales
service.

As you're going to be putting the components together yourself, I do
suggest you use a company with a good aftersales service in case you
accidentally mess something up.

 

[Donald McTrevor]

Unfortunatley OE did not quote this properly.
Regarding graphics and sound, I have a built an integrated
system on my current set-up and I was wondering if I could
use a seperate graphic and/or sound cards to speed up my
computer a bit? Or does it being built in mean I am basically
stuck with a slow set up? I would imagine I could pick up
something pretty cheap which would improve my system
(like from ebay). Most .wmv files are unwatchable/unplayable
on my currrent set up.
I am not sure how these video cards work anyway but .wmv
criples my PC!!

Yes the semperon would be OK, the Athlon 64 just sounds
sexier!!! and itisnot that much more considering it tends to come
with a system with double the memeory and hard drive.

Mind you here is a £370 semperon (v £420 athlon 64) which has
a bigger hard drive (200 not 160) for £50 less.
It can all get very confusing!! Especially as they are marketed so
that there is always soomething that little bit better for a little bit
more. I am sure I have seen semperons for around £300 too.

I gues I am looking for something 'future proof' which will probably
never be the case whatever I buy!!
A few months ago the Semperon looked a bit pricy but now I view it
as the bare minimum!!
One of the things which is 'bugging me' is that I would like a 939 socket
as I think it might be more 'future proof' but in reality that socket would
probably be obselete by the time on my next upgrade (probably 6 years on!!).
Decisions...decisions!!
"I used to think I was indecisive, but now I am not so sure".


AMD Sempron 3000+ Processor

512 Mb DDR RAM

200 Gb Hard Disk Capacity

Multi-Format Dual Layer DVD Re-Writer

Integrated Intel Extreme graphics

6-in-1 Media Card Reader

4 x USB 2.0 connections

Microsoft Works 7.0

Windows XP Home Edition Operating-System









Further notes:
I pieced together a computer of equivalent specs to yours for £400
excl VAT, compared to Curry's £500. I bet others could beat it
price-wise with a bit more effort. Be aware that your audio/graphics
processors appear to be integrated into your motherboard, which means
your computer will slow down when it is playing music or displaying
graphics (as opposed to having a separate, dedicated card).

Also, as you appear to be a computer user who does not require a high
powered system, you could probably build a much cheaper platform using
the AMD Sempron processors.

 

[Random Person]

What exactly do you use your computer for?

I remember reading a while ago that a 1GHz PC is plenty for typical
office/clerical work. A run of the mill Sempron 2500+ or so would more
than suffice. You only really should get an AMD64 if you think you will
need it.

 

[Donald McTrevor]

Again OE will not quote your post for some reason but thanks
anyway its very useful.

I have never put togeather a system myself bar upgrading memory
and adding hard drives and cdroms etc. So I probably would not
have a problem at least not untill the word BIOS is mentioned!!

One think not mentioned is carriage costs, I don't know if I can get
those parts locally and P&P tends to be costly.
I am in Nottingham and there don't tend to be many parts retailers
about, apart from maplin, who tend to be expensive.

Anyway I will have a look at it again tomorrow.


Hi Donald. Yes, the first thing I did when you posted the link is check
out the system

Here is my equivalent system:

AMD (Clawhammer) Athlon 64 Bit 3200/1 Mb L2 cache 754Pin CPU OEM
£92.35

Motherboard 800FSB DDR400 8xAGP USB2.0 £27.22

Seagate 160GB HDD - OEM £43.99

512MB DDR 400MHz PC3200 CL=3 Memory Module £26.59

LG 52x32x52x16x CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo Drive Black - OEM £17.85

Midi Tower Case in Beige with 2.0 USB/Audio and 350w PSU £13.21

CTX 15" TFT (3 Years Warranty) £99.98

OEM Windows XP Home Edition SP2 - 1Pk £50.68

ATI Radeon 9200 128MB DDR DVI TV-Out Retail Box £18.71

Cart Total: £390.58 (excl. VAT)

I would however shop around from different retailers. The one I put the
pieces together from are not exactly known for their glowing aftersales
service.

As you're going to be putting the components together yourself, I do
suggest you use a company with a good aftersales service in case you
accidentally mess something up.

 

[Random Person]

As I recall, the P&P for the comp from that retailer cost under £10.
My first homebuilt computer was a success, even though I had no prior
experience. It is not that difficult, just make sure you have a clear
space to work with, ground your hands from any static and read the
manuals.

 

[Donald McTrevor]

What exactly do you use your computer for?

Not much really as far as processing goes, I was just trying to
future proof my self. I thought my existing computer would
last forever untill they started bringing out ever more bloated and
inefficient applications. I often find when I 'upgrade' an application
it runs several times slower.
I play poker online for money sometimes and it is a real struggle
for it to play two tables at once (which makes it more of a struggle
for me too!! as it takes an age to switch between table, sometimes
being so slow I lose money because the hand has timed out).
(I actually made a profit recently!!)
It might be nice to burn cds in the background at times too.
Also it won't play some video .wmv files as it is too slow which
is a real pain, they seem to be unbelievably slow!!! I am not sure
why.
Also I would like to watch some football matches via my PC
but I will need a faster internet connection for that too (current;ly
300kbs) need 1 or 2 meg.
I am hoping the profits from poker will pay for that, athough probaly
not judging by my perfromance last night!! However results over the
last 3 months suggest it will.
I would not recommend you trying it yourself though, I lost quite a
bit initially but then won it back when I learn't more about the game.

 

[kony]

I strongly disagree. Even when the socket remains the same there are
generally chipset or motherboard changes to go from a first generation to
a second generation part. For example the motherboards that were current
when the Athlon XP 1600+ was state of the art can't take a part faster
than a 2200+, hardly a worthwhile upgrade.

Ah but they can!

If you can't run at the higher FSB, you just increase the
multipler. It's true that it can't be done with some of the
newer generation multiplier locked AMD chips, BUT we don't
need it to be possible on those, merely to have an upgrade
path that isn't locked- enter Mobile XP.

It will be a significant percent lower performance to drop
FSB (and memory bus). That doesn't diminish it's value
though, because even if you only gained 70% performoance
increase (which is conservatively low figure for most apps),
it's still done at only $85 cost. That IS good bang for
the buck for "some" people... not myself and apparently not
you but for others it was a good choice.

 

[Fakename]

Computers are basically disposable. When it's time for an upgrade you
won't really care what this one can be upgraded to because you'll
probably be buying a new one.

 

[kony]

Computers are basically disposable. When it's time for an upgrade you
won't really care what this one can be upgraded to because you'll
probably be buying a new one.

Sure, if you buy junk then don't know how to upgrade it.
Otherwise, "probably" be buying a new one has everything to
do with why you needed the upgrade.