Anyone else regret buying a x2 939?

gt_junkie · 23 Mar 2007 at 15:05

Forgot to say that i am very happy with my Opteron! @ 2.8ghz it does everything i need it to and as i game at 1680x1050 with my overclocked GX2 i'm not that CPU limited either!

gt

Firegod · 23 Mar 2007 at 15:28

Tbh I'm looking to get the x2 4200+ CPU atm. My trusty single core (see sig) is starting to struggle, especially in SupCom. I can finally justify buying a dual-core CPU. I don't want to have to spend a lot either. The intel stuff looks great, but that means a new mobo and new memory. Expensive!

What I want to do, is a quick stop gap measure really, and £135 is a top price. I think I may get the dual core s939 CPU and hold out till just after Summer and upgrade properly to Quad. (Hopefully with AMD's new Chip).

So, no, I probably wouldn't regret buying an x2 939 even at this late stage. My single core CPU has, and still is, going strong but it's just starting to show it's "age" now... if you will. lol.

jaykay · 23 Mar 2007 at 15:47

same im in the same position my friend is moving to a c2d and i happy to sell it to me cheap compared to what he could get but im gpu limited but s939 is dead i wont have another chance

pegasus1 · 23 Mar 2007 at 16:26

MadMatty said:
you would regret c2d just as much as intel will obsolete it soon enough c2d isnt fast enough to upgrade from a 939/am2 system but whatever is next from intel/amd should be a nice jump from 939 and c2d.

we think dual core is slow because nothing utilises it properly yet. what will come of the slower clocked quad cores which nothing will utilise properly either .

I dont agree, i went from a 3700SD to the rig in sig and the difference was amazing (even with the C2D at stock), everything is miles quicker.

Hades · 23 Mar 2007 at 19:12

No regrets for me. I love my Opty 165. If I were to buy today then obviously I'd get a C2D. But at the time it was the right decision

lsg1r · 24 Mar 2007 at 00:16

pegasus1 said:
I dont agree, i went from a 3700SD to the rig in sig and the difference was amazing (even with the C2D at stock), everything is miles quicker.

well I would hope things are quicker when you go from single to dual core

Cyber-Mav · 24 Mar 2007 at 01:33

Camalot said:
Still running

AMD64 3200+ Venice @ 2.5
2gb Ram
ATI 1800XT 256mb

Built it almost 1year ago stil very happy. Keep getting tempted to put in a 3800X2 and clock it. But all i really play atm is wow. So dont think ill bother!

get that x2 now while they are going cheapo. will make that system of your last a lot longer.

now that my dual core opteron is on order i will not have to upgrade again till 8 core systems are on the cheapo.

hp7909 · 24 Mar 2007 at 09:57

pegasus1 said:
I dont agree, i went from a 3700SD to the rig in sig and the difference was amazing (even with the C2D at stock), everything is miles quicker.

But that's not a (totally) fair comparison since the 3700 is single-core!

Ronaldo · 24 Mar 2007 at 10:03

well i love my 939, i dont think any AM2 has much or any advantage over my setup.

get over 10K in 3dmark06 so dont think any core2 is much better

kbc · 24 Mar 2007 at 22:58

Don't regret it, since I've had my system for over 14 months now.

But am waiting for the Intel "price-cuts" in April so I can upgrade my system.

Will be replacing my mainboard, RAM, CPU and dumping the case for a new one for a more up-to-date setup.

But at the moment I can't complain, it's going well but going the Core 2 route will keep me up-to-date and by then I will load Vista onto it. :cool:

Would also be a good excuse to go for a more silent rig.

trojan698 · 25 Mar 2007 at 00:26

I do. I saw no performance boost in gaming (my main use) and ended up selling for a £100 loss six months later. Saying that, I regret many decisions on my 939 upgrade, it was mainly due to lack of knowledge. If I could go back, I'd have bought an Opty 146 + Dual sata2 and kept my 9800XT (another ill advised purchase

)

Gashman · 25 Mar 2007 at 00:31

Ronaldo said:
well i love my 939, i dont think any AM2 has much or any advantage over my setup.

get over 10K in 3dmark06 so dont think any core2 is much better

i agree with you totally, the fanboys will be in here having a go shortly telling us how C2D is most important breakthrough since the discovery of fire, its barely faster than a good 939 setup, my mate runs E6600 and its more or less exact same as this, as long as your not overclocking C2D isn't worth the ranting hype its getting, overclock and its a totally different matter like, people get too caught up in benchmarking and shouting 'conroe does 1M superpi in 14 seconds :eek:

' not realising the difference in real world applications is negligable price/price performance, its a damn shame they killed 939 but they had to as intel stamped there foot down and DDR2 has became standard

trojan698 · 25 Mar 2007 at 00:46

Gashman said:
the fanboys will be in here having a go shortly telling us how C2D is most important breakthrough since the discovery of fire,

That made me lol

It's true though, the real world performance difference is neglidgable although I noticed the biggest difference from native dual core. IE, it handled games like a single core but with the power of dual.

Chandler_90 · 25 Mar 2007 at 02:30

I kinda regret gettin a 170... mainly cos I don't have the RAM to do it justice..
Currently sitting at 2.2.. which is no good tbh..

Looking at gettin some new ram soon so I can hit 2.6/7/8...

Next major upgrade will be for Crysis.. then at least I have something to upgrade for....

Chandler_90 · 25 Mar 2007 at 02:30

....

I had a blonde moment...

pegasus1 · 25 Mar 2007 at 09:53

hp7909 said:
But that's not a (totally) fair comparison since the 3700 is single-core!

No programs i use make use of dual core, well maybe Q4 but thats about it.

jaykay · 25 Mar 2007 at 10:51

yer but if you use lots of programes at the same time then it will be faster
loading programes will be faster on dual cores etc

masslac · 25 Mar 2007 at 10:54

pegasus1 said:
No programs i use make use of dual core, well maybe Q4 but thats about it.

I play CS/COD and have about 6 apps running in the background due to dual core. It's for the win.

pegasus1 · 25 Mar 2007 at 11:14

jaykay said:
yer but if you use lots of programes at the same time then it will be faster
loading programes will be faster on dual cores etc

I agree with that but the comparisan was said to be unfair, between my e6300 and my old 3700sd that is.
My e6300 (in Sig) is faster cos it belts along at 3.4ghz rather than cos its dual core. in laymens terms not getting to technical.

hp7909 · 25 Mar 2007 at 11:21

pegasus1 said:
No programs i use make use of dual core, well maybe Q4 but thats about it.

Now that can't be entirely true, unless you've set affinity of all programs to 1 core/CPU