Socket 939: Dead or alive?.....

mikeo · 16 Dec 2006 at 17:00

Welll... I only recently (IE. 3 weeks ago) upgraded my P4 based system to an AMD 939 system. As much as anything, to get access to a PCIe socket. And got to be honest... by shopping around, I picked up a mobo and half decent processor for peanuts. More than happy with what I've got. Though be doubly happy if AMD do go ahead and produce some faster processors on 939. Though I doubt it myself.

Mul · 16 Dec 2006 at 17:07

Doppleganger said:
And mine too.

and mine.

I for one am also sticking on 939. I don't actually need a high amount of processing power and my 3700+ at 2.8Ghz does what I need. However as someone who likes to do his cheap but effective upgrades, the restarting of the Socket 939 dual core line would be fantastic!

Mul

Defcon5 · 16 Dec 2006 at 19:28

Reckon a 3.5ghz 65nm X2 on 939 with some uber BH-5 @ ~260mhz 2-2-2-5 could take down a conroe at 3ghz?

jaykay · 16 Dec 2006 at 19:58

yer easily as ddr ram timings are where amd shine

Mul · 16 Dec 2006 at 20:08

can't say it'd beat a 3.0Ghz C2D based machine but a 3.5Ghz X2 with BH5 260 2-2-2-5 would come pretty close to matching the C2d performance I reckon

Margaret · 16 Dec 2006 at 20:33

Mul said:
can't say it'd beat a 3.0Ghz C2D based machine but a 3.5Ghz X2 with BH5 260 2-2-2-5 would come pretty close to matching the C2d performance I reckon

Yet I'd put money on a 3.5 Ghz stock X2 being more than 250 quid.

Margaret · 16 Dec 2006 at 20:34

jaykay said:
yer easily as ddr ram timings are where amd shine

On crack?

Mul said:
can't say it'd beat a 3.0Ghz C2D based machine but a 3.5Ghz X2 with BH5 260 2-2-2-5 would come pretty close to matching the C2d performance I reckon

Yet I'd put money on a 3.5 Ghz stock X2 being more than 250 quid.

Defcon5 said:
Reckon a 3.5ghz 65nm X2 on 939 with some uber BH-5 @ ~260mhz 2-2-2-5 could take down a conroe at 3ghz?

I'd say no.

Final8y · 16 Dec 2006 at 20:43

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17661907

Skyline said:
I have my contact at ATI/AMD sitting across from me now and he has confirmed that AMD will be starting reproduction of the AMD X2 4200+ and above in S939 format sometime in the new year. He cannot tell me when it is or if they will be 65nm either but there is definately a production allocation for S939 based CPU's.

Defcon5 · 16 Dec 2006 at 21:04

Is that a reproduction or just old stock theyve been keeping?

Gashman · 16 Dec 2006 at 22:25

Defcon5 said:
Reckon a 3.5ghz 65nm X2 on 939 with some uber BH-5 @ ~260mhz 2-2-2-5 could take down a conroe at 3ghz?

i agree, since these retarded idiot benchmarkers keep crippling K8 with crappy high latency DDR2, they simply think (more frequency = better) well newsflash, K8 is as dependant on low latency memory as conroe is a motherboard, i got a 4% improvement in 3D mark '06 on CPU score just for setting ram timings more aggressively :confused:

so yeah i think X2 65nm at 3.4/5Ghz could beat a conroe at 3Ghz as long as its paired with CAS2 memory

or at least only be a few % behind at the most, AMD are dumb if they abandon socket 939, still plenty of life left in it, nobody needs crappy DDR2 anyways

so yeah im sticking with socket 939 as long as i can and i for one sincerly hope AMD don't abandon a good socket too soon

Gashman · 16 Dec 2006 at 22:26

Jihad said:
On crack?

Yet I'd put money on a 3.5 Ghz stock X2 being more than 250 quid.
I'd say no.

he said nothing about the X2 running at 3.5Ghz stock :rolleyes:

Margaret · 16 Dec 2006 at 22:44

Gashman said:
he said nothing about the X2 running at 3.5Ghz stock

I was talking about a X2 that runs at 3.5 Ghz stock speed that I 'think' I heard of being released.

Defcon5 · 16 Dec 2006 at 22:47

Jihad said:
I was talking about a X2 that runs at 3.5 Ghz stock speed that I 'think' I heard of being released.

Must be 65nm then, no way can 90 scale that far

Gashman · 16 Dec 2006 at 23:16

Jihad said:
I was talking about a X2 that runs at 3.5 Ghz stock speed that I 'think' I heard of being released.

seriously? is this on AM2 or 939 (prays it 939)

Spyhop · 17 Dec 2006 at 00:39

I don't see how it would make sense to kill it.

Come next year and the big games, it's going to be a choice between a pop-in 939 dual-core or defection to Intel for a lot of people.

slap ed · 17 Dec 2006 at 08:09

i think most off us with socket 939 systems would like to see it carrying on but i think in all likelyhood it's as dead as a dodo

Gashman · 17 Dec 2006 at 12:40

well if AM2 doesn't beat intel then its intel for me next year

however if AMD release a new chip on 939 i shall stick with the trusted socket 939

Killajaz · 19 Dec 2006 at 07:11

Does anyone know if moving to DDR2 was the only reason AMD had to kill 939? As others are saying, it is a very good socket and it performs well today.

22BUK · 19 Dec 2006 at 11:58

Killajaz said:
Does anyone know if moving to DDR2 was the only reason AMD had to kill 939? As others are saying, it is a very good socket and it performs well today.

There are very few differences (if any) between 939 and AM2, other than the memory interface.

Mr Paul · 19 Dec 2006 at 12:13

AMD needed to move to DDR2 and thats pretty much the only reason for going AM2.