Socket 939 CPU's

Lord Alibaski · 6 Dec 2006 at 16:18

Question?

Is Socket939 now dead or will AMD be going back too socket939 in any future processors.

Did they really need to make AM2 socket940 could this not have been done on the 939 chipset. Sorry if these questions seem a bit daft but I just don’t understand why a good processor can be abandoned so quickly. I know it’s all about improvement and progressing but couldn’t they have just stayed with socket 939 and could a BIOS update on motherboards worked for DDR2 memory.

Tetras · 6 Dec 2006 at 16:41

With LGA775 being DDR2 for so long they were gonna have to switch eventually (or you'd end up paying higher memory prices) and a BIOS update wouldn't work for two reasons, DDR and DDR2 operate on different voltage with a different pinout (so are not physically compatible and can't be dropped in the same slots) and the memory controller on Athlon 64s is built in so you can't just add support for another kind of memory without re-designing the controller built into the processor.

As regards new socket 939 models, no, they are now end of line.

Lord Alibaski · 6 Dec 2006 at 16:44

Thanks for explaining about the voltage m8 didn't actually read up on the differences so that really explains it all too me.

ZXSpectrum · 8 Dec 2006 at 11:23

Tetras said:
As regards new socket 939 models, no, they are now end of line.

There will be a new batch of X2 939 CPU's out after new year inc the X2 5000 and above...

Its just like what happened with the S754 They will stop production to concentrate on the AM2 so everyone will upgrade but they also see there is still a market for ppl that cant afford a new cpu, memory and mobo so there is a new batch run schedualed...

gurusan · 8 Dec 2006 at 12:50

Skyline said:
There will be a new batch of X2 939 CPU's out after new year inc the X2 5000 and above... Its just like what happened with the S754 They will stop production to concentrate on the AM2 so everyone will upgrade but they also see there is still a market for ppl that cant afford a new cpu, memory and mobo so there is a new batch run schedualed...

source?

Defcon5 · 8 Dec 2006 at 12:51

That info 100% true?

gurusan · 8 Dec 2006 at 12:55

if it is that's good news to me

ZXSpectrum · 8 Dec 2006 at 13:21

The company i work fro supplies and sells CAD workstations. The info came from my distributer that is the uk's top AMD distributer.

ooEy · 8 Dec 2006 at 13:48

I can confirm the above, i just spoke to one of my suppliers and he confirmed.

I wonder/hope AMD release them using 65nm chips, that would be cool.

Final8y · 8 Dec 2006 at 13:51

Skyline said:
The company i work for supplies and sells CAD workstations. The info came from my distributer that is the uk's top AMD distributer.

That would be sweet

Phil2008 · 8 Dec 2006 at 15:43

Would I notice much diff going from my fx55 clawhammer to a x2 5000+

Tetras · 8 Dec 2006 at 16:09

In games? Not really.

Defcon5 · 8 Dec 2006 at 20:27

will they be 65nm?

slap ed · 10 Dec 2006 at 10:57

i hope so

ZXSpectrum · 10 Dec 2006 at 20:35

Defcon5 said:
will they be 65nm?

Dunno i am afraid... I cant see them being unless they do go above 4800+ as thier r&d will be concentrated on the new products. That said its not out of the question.

Dureth · 10 Dec 2006 at 22:32

65nm would be more likely I would say as this reduces the costs to AMD and increases their profit margin. If they have the spare 65nm capacity they may use it for these chips. Also a new process is often used first on the lower end chips and then on the high end parts so as to get any creases out before stretching it to the limits.

However I'm still sceptical that we will see any 939 CPU's in the retail channel.

Antx777 · 11 Dec 2006 at 15:03

Tetras said:
In games? Not really.

Really?

COD2 147 fps on x2 5000+, 109fps on FX-55 on Toms' CPU charts

Other games seem to follow suit too, with quake 4 on 153, on the AMD x2 5000+, and 96 on the FX-55 http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=483&model2=465&chart=166.

I Wouldn't call that "not really" would you?

-Ant

Tetras · 11 Dec 2006 at 17:38

I Wouldn't call that "not really" would you?

Fear (1280 x 920: 59 to 50 FPS, 120 FPS to 111 FPS).

UT 2004 (1280 x 1024: 98 FPS to 89 FPS).

CoD2 (1024 x 768: 147 FPS to 109 FPS

Quake IV (1024 x 768: 153 FPS to 96 FPS)

Serious Sam (1024 x 768: 98 FPS to 85 FPS)

3D Mark 2006 (1280 x 1024: 5984 marks to 5054 marks)

One of the first things you will notice is that the resolutions are LOW (particularly with Quake IV and CoD2, the ones you pointed out) and none of those games are particularly demanding on a GPU of the X1900 XTs calibre at those settings, which is done intentionally to minimise the influence of the graphics card (and draw out the differences in CPU power).

Now tell me, can you really tell the difference in real terms between ANY of those figures?

You are also comparing an AM2 rig with faster memory (though the speed effect is debatable I admit).

Would I want to spend my money on that upgrade? No. Am I justified on saying the difference is "In games? Not really.", well I know what I think

Antx777 · 11 Dec 2006 at 18:20

Hi Tetras,

I want you to be as right as possible, because i have an FX-55 too

(won't overclock though) - but there does seem to be some large gaps in frame rate, and on the bar charts between the two!. I game at 1280x1024 res, and will be upgrading to a DX10 next year (now). :cool:

-Ant

Tetras · 11 Dec 2006 at 18:42

Like I said m8, the two games that have the largest gaps are at a low resolution where the CPU is the bottleneck (high end cards of today laugh at 1024 x 768), as the resolution and detail level increases the graphics card becomes the bottleneck and you'll see less difference between the two CPUs (like the 59 to 50 in the first Fear bench).

It is generally accepted that for most games 60 FPS is smooth gameplay (some slower games, strategy, RPG so on 30 can be acceptable), above 100 you really will be very hard pressed to see a difference even in a shooter: 147 to 109 and 153 to 96 won't have any noticable effect on your gaming experience imo (and it is an unrealistic statistic in the real world with the games you'll be playing).

Whether that is a better upgrade for your 939 board (assuming they release new X2s) than buying a Core 2 Duo is another topic altogether. Myself I say an Athlon 64 @ 2.6 (2.8 in his case) Ghz with an X1900 XT (again that the poster I was talking to has) there is really not a worthwhile gain purely from a gaming point of view.