Processor advice please

[Alistair]

Hi all,

I'm just about to replace my aging XP1600 system with a nice shiny new
shuttle...but...I've not been paying much attention to the processor market
and now it's all gone confusing!!

I've been using AMDs even since my first K5/400 back in the early 90s so I
plan to stick with them.

now there's a socket 462(A), socket 754, socket 939, then there's Newcastle
and Winchester and Sempron and Barton etc etc etc...wtf??

I'm not needing anything on the overclocking front. I just need to know
which processor I should go for.

The specs for the m/b I'm looking at say that it supports socket A processor
with a front side bus at 200/266/333/400.

so my question is...what's the best one I can get?

Is a socket A gonna be enough for the next few years (bearing in mind I
don't upgrade every week and I've been happily running my xp1600 for a few
years now), should I try and spend a bit more and get a 754 or go the whole
hog and get a 939?

many thanks

 

[f/fgeorge]

Hi all,

I'm just about to replace my aging XP1600 system with a nice shiny new
shuttle...but...I've not been paying much attention to the processor market
and now it's all gone confusing!!

I've been using AMDs even since my first K5/400 back in the early 90s so I
plan to stick with them.

now there's a socket 462(A), socket 754, socket 939, then there's Newcastle
and Winchester and Sempron and Barton etc etc etc...wtf??

I'm not needing anything on the overclocking front. I just need to know
which processor I should go for.

The specs for the m/b I'm looking at say that it supports socket A processor
with a front side bus at 200/266/333/400.

so my question is...what's the best one I can get?

Is a socket A gonna be enough for the next few years (bearing in mind I
don't upgrade every week and I've been happily running my xp1600 for a few
years now), should I try and spend a bit more and get a 754 or go the whole
hog and get a 939?

many thanks

The only thing I can add to your info is that a Sempron is the new
name that AMD used to call the Durons. The small L2 cache size chips.
All other things being equal a Sempron will under-perform a 512k or
larger L2 cache size "normal" chip.

 

[Ed]

Hi all,

I'm just about to replace my aging XP1600 system with a nice shiny new
shuttle...but...I've not been paying much attention to the processor market
and now it's all gone confusing!!

I've been using AMDs even since my first K5/400 back in the early 90s so I
plan to stick with them.

now there's a socket 462(A), socket 754, socket 939, then there's Newcastle
and Winchester and Sempron and Barton etc etc etc...wtf??

I'm not needing anything on the overclocking front. I just need to know
which processor I should go for.

The specs for the m/b I'm looking at say that it supports socket A processor
with a front side bus at 200/266/333/400.

so my question is...what's the best one I can get?

Is a socket A gonna be enough for the next few years (bearing in mind I
don't upgrade every week and I've been happily running my xp1600 for a few
years now), should I try and spend a bit more and get a 754 or go the whole
hog and get a 939?

many thanks

Socket-A came out in mid 1999, the fastest CPU is the XP 3200+ and that
was released in May of 2003, AMD has no plans to make faster XP chips,
Socket-A is on it's way out.

Comparing AXP to A64, Athlon 64's do more work at the same MHz, run
cooler, support Windows XP-64 and Linux x86-64bit operating systems.

Ed

 

[zzipper]

If you're looking at a longer life-cycle like have done in the past, I
suggest starting at the top with a socket 939. You'll be happy for several
years at least with something like that and you're ahead of the game because
you're ready for 64-bit computing when it goes mainstream.

 

[wizzzer]

I have been reading a lot about this subject for the past several days,
and the short answer is that you should get a socket 939 motherboard
with nForce4 chipset and PCI Express slots. If you get an SLI
motherboard, you can use two graphics cards but you don't have to. As
for the CPU, get an Athlon 64 3000+ or faster, with the new 90nm
process and 939 pin. 939 socket 90nm chips run very cool. They have a
built-in memory controller. 939 socket is new and should be around for
a while. Lastly you have to be very careful you get the right memory. I
think DDR 400 PC3200 is recommended. You should get 1 or 2 gigabytes of
memory. Then you need to get a 3D card that's fairly powerful, but I
don't know which one. If you have a lot of money, you can buy an Athlon
64 FX. They have a 1mb level 2 cache. I think a few other athlons have
it too. If you can get any Athlon cpu with a 1mb cache, it helps the
speed a lot. Tom's Hardware web site has a lot of good information plus
some charts to compare different CPU features and their speed. So that
boils down what I've found out. You can pretty much forget about the
other options available at this time. 754 is finished and 940 is for
servers I think. I also wouldn't get any motherboards that don't have
PCI Express slots. By the way, you can use PCI cards in PCI Express
slots, but not AGP cards.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Hi all,

I'm just about to replace my aging XP1600 system with a nice shiny new
shuttle...but...I've not been paying much attention to the processor market
and now it's all gone confusing!!

I've been using AMDs even since my first K5/400 back in the early 90s so I
plan to stick with them.

now there's a socket 462(A), socket 754, socket 939, then there's Newcastle
and Winchester and Sempron and Barton etc etc etc...wtf??

I'm not needing anything on the overclocking front. I just need to know
which processor I should go for.

The specs for the m/b I'm looking at say that it supports socket A processor
with a front side bus at 200/266/333/400.

so my question is...what's the best one I can get?

Is a socket A gonna be enough for the next few years (bearing in mind I
don't upgrade every week and I've been happily running my xp1600 for a few
years now), should I try and spend a bit more and get a 754 or go the whole
hog and get a 939?

many thanks

The biggest bang for the buck is the 754 pin Athlon 64 with a 1M cache
(be careful the 3400+ comes in both 1/2M and 1M versions, you want the
version with 1M cache). I have two A64 systems, a laptop with a 754 3400+
(1M cache) and a desktop with a 939 pin 3800+ (1/2M cache). On Verilog
simulations with no disk I/O the 3400+ is twice as fast as the 3800+. On
other tasks the performance is similar. Don't worry about upgradeablity,
even if you get a 939 there is no guarantee that you will be able to
upgrade it in the future. For example the new E stepping of the 939 is
reported to be incompatible with many existing Nforce3 and 4 motherboards
because AMD made a change to the thermal diode. When AMD comes out with
dual core A64s all bets are off. Even if they use the same socket there
can be all sorts of things that might make it incompatible. Also the price
of the dual cores is likely to be so high that the additional cost of a
new motherboard won't be all that significant.

 

[Norm Fournier]

If money is a concern grab the socket 754 for immediate gratification
of the highest speeds. I'll now be good for about 2 years.
In 2007, the socket 939's will be on their way out and much cheaper.

 

[Norm Fournier]

P.S. They still don't sell memory sticks that can reach the 800 MHz FSB
the current 754 boards are capable of.

 

[Derek Baker]

P.S. They still don't sell memory sticks that can reach the 800 MHz FSB
the current 754 boards are capable of.

The Athlon 64 doesn't have an FSB; the 800Mhz is for the hypertransport bus,
which doesn't take part in memory access. The memory bus is 200Mhz, which
interfaces to DDR400/PC3200.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Wes Newell]

The Athlon 64 doesn't have an FSB; the 800Mhz is for the hypertransport bus,
which doesn't take part in memory access. The memory bus is 200Mhz, which
interfaces to DDR400/PC3200.

Sure it has a FSB. What do you think the HT link is? it connects the CPU
to the rest of the system, exckuding ram, through the chipset. That is the
FSB. It's all a name game, but FSB is actually a more appropriate term for
the HT link between the northbridge and cpu, as HT links can be used in
many places. FSB specifically means between cpu and chipset.

 

[Dee]

Sure it has a FSB. What do you think the HT link is? it connects the CPU
to the rest of the system, exckuding ram, through the chipset. That is the
FSB. It's all a name game, but FSB is actually a more appropriate term for
the HT link between the northbridge and cpu, as HT links can be used in
many places. FSB specifically means between cpu and chipset.

According to AMD's tech docs, it does not have an FSB. And they even
explain the difference between an FSB and a HT.

You need to bone up on your technology!

 

[Wes Newell]

According to AMD's tech docs, it does not have an FSB. And they even
explain the difference between an FSB and a HT.

You need to bone up on your technology!

And Abit and everyone else almost said I couldn't run an XP cpu in my KT7
board. I really don't think I need to bone up on technology.. It doesn't
matter how AMD wants to brainwash the masses, the link between the CPU and
chipset is still the f*cking FSB. It fits the definition of a FSB and it
is the f*cking FSB. Just because it's now a serial HT link instead of a
paralell connection doesn't change its function. It still moves data back
and forth between the northbridge and CPU. The only other bus connected to
the cpu is the memory bus. Now I really don't care what you want to call
the HT link, but it is in fact a FSB. And don't assume all HT links
connect between the CPU and chipset. That's just one use of the HT
technology.. Here's some info on it.

http://www.hypertransport.org/consortium/cons_faqs.cfm

 

[Wes Newell]

According to AMD's tech docs, it does not have an FSB. And they even
explain the difference between an FSB and a HT.

I'd like to read this BS. Got a link to it. I can hardly wait to see how
they spin this crap. Just FYI, a computer system can't work without a FSB
unless its a single chip computer.

 

[/..]

By Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:18:03 -0500, Dee <[email protected]>
decided to post "Re: Processor advice please" to
alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64:

According to AMD's tech docs, it does not have an FSB. And they even
explain the difference between an FSB and a HT.

You need to bone up on your technology!

As a lazy-lurker, could I request a link for the AMD docs mentioned above?
Thanks.

/..

--

find / -iname "*gw*" -exec rm -rf {} \;

In heaven, there is no beer,
That's why we drink it here,
And when we're all gone from here,
Our friends will be drinking all the beer!
-- Famous old Czech song about beer --

 

[Dee]

By Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:18:03 -0500, Dee <[email protected]>
decided to post "Re: Processor advice please" to
alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64:




As a lazy-lurker, could I request a link for the AMD docs mentioned above?
Thanks.

/..

--

find / -iname "*gw*" -exec rm -rf {} \;

In heaven, there is no beer,
That's why we drink it here,
And when we're all gone from here,
Our friends will be drinking all the beer!
-- Famous old Czech song about beer --

Well, I too busy to go look for it at the moment. If you're not in a
hurry, I can probably get it later this week or maybe next week.

 

[Derek Baker]

"the front-side bus has been replaced..."

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9505,00.html#91047

 

[/..]

By Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:48:15 -0000, "Derek Baker"

"the front-side bus has been replaced..."

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9505,00.html#91047

Got it, thanks. It still looks 'definitional' -- whether you go with a new
def of the terminology or traditional def.

/..


--

exec rm -r /bin/laden*

##--------------------------------------------------##
"We are stardust, we are golden,
And we've got to get ourselves back to the Garden"
Joni Mitchell
##--------------------------------------------------##

 

[Wes Newell]

Well, I too busy to go look for it at the moment. If you're not in a
hurry, I can probably get it later this week or maybe next week.

Well, I found this searching ask.amd.com. I hesitate to post it thinking
some may actaully believe it, but here it is. Just don't believe it, it's
BS.

"Welcome to Ask AMD

Problem
What is the front-side bus frequency of the AMD Athlon 64 processor?

Solution
AMD Athlon 64 Processor Memory Bus

In the AMD Athlon 64 processor, the front-side bus has been replaced by
a dedicated memory bus and a HyperTransport technology link. The
HyperTransport link operates at a frequency of up to 1600MHz. "

And to confuse everyone more, the HT links clock speed isn't 1600MHz. That
more BS of changing data rates to MHz. Both AMD and Intel have taken
numbers and just turned them into whatever they want. Either for
marketing (my guess), or to avoid true explanation.

 

[Wes Newell]

"the front-side bus has been replaced..."

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9505,00.html#91047

That's just AMD BS. The FSB can't be replaced. It just changed from
a paralell bus to serial bus (HT link). And before the 64 the ram bus
connected to the chipset and the data traveld over the FSB bus to the CPU.
Now it's just direct to it, freeing up the FSB (HT link) to handle all the
other data much faster, and of course the memory bus latency is much
faster now too since it's direct.

 

[Wes Newell]

By Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:48:15 -0000, "Derek Baker"

Got it, thanks. It still looks 'definitional' -- whether you go with a new
def of the terminology or traditional def.

And they still didn't answer the question The frequency (clock speed)
isn't 2000MHz. And the FSB bus wasn'r replaced, only the bus type, from
paralell to serial. From a technical standpoint everything they say is
crap.