P
Pccomputerdr
Is Socket 939 ATHLON 64 out yet?
J
J. Clarke
Pccomputerdr said:
Next time try Froogle. Several vendors have stock.
F
Frank
Should be, I´m writing this on one rigth now!
F
First of One
Yes, though be prepared to shell out a grand for an FX-53.
P
Pccomputerdr
I visited AMD website, and noticed that the socket 939 Athlon processors are
Athlon 64 3500+, Athlon 64 3800+, and Athlon 64 FX-53.
AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 Processor is a bit pricy. It has 128KB L1 cache just like
Athlon 64 3500+, and 3800+. AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 Processor has 1MB L2 cache
which is twice as much that of Athlon 64 3500+, and 3800+.
The real benefit of socket 939 processor is that it can use unbuffered
dual-channel memory.
Having said all that, even though it is a bit pricy, I am leaning toward AMD
Athlon 64 FX-53. As ultimate gaming experience, and future investment, is
Socket 939 AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 processor worth its price?
Do you think there is not much performance difference between FX-53 and 3800+
as well as future benefits that only FX-53 can take advantage of whereas 3500+,
and 3800+ are not capable of such...?
Thanks
Athlon 64 3500+, Athlon 64 3800+, and Athlon 64 FX-53.
AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 Processor is a bit pricy. It has 128KB L1 cache just like
Athlon 64 3500+, and 3800+. AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 Processor has 1MB L2 cache
which is twice as much that of Athlon 64 3500+, and 3800+.
The real benefit of socket 939 processor is that it can use unbuffered
dual-channel memory.
Having said all that, even though it is a bit pricy, I am leaning toward AMD
Athlon 64 FX-53. As ultimate gaming experience, and future investment, is
Socket 939 AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 processor worth its price?
Do you think there is not much performance difference between FX-53 and 3800+
as well as future benefits that only FX-53 can take advantage of whereas 3500+,
and 3800+ are not capable of such...?
Thanks
F
First of One
Take a look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=5
Neither dual-channel DDR nor a 1MB L2 cache really help performance, at
least in Doom3. That low-latency single-channel memory controller in the
S754 A64 seems pretty "optimized". Keep in mind there's a clock speed
difference between the FX-53 and a 3400+.
The only problem is the S754 seems to be dead. Reportedly new processors
will only appear on S939.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=5
Neither dual-channel DDR nor a 1MB L2 cache really help performance, at
least in Doom3. That low-latency single-channel memory controller in the
S754 A64 seems pretty "optimized". Keep in mind there's a clock speed
difference between the FX-53 and a 3400+.
The only problem is the S754 seems to be dead. Reportedly new processors
will only appear on S939.
A
Andrew
Using one over hyped game is hardly a useful indicator of general
performance increase. A lot of applications get large increases from a
bigger cache.
F
First of One
Do the same applications get large increases from a bigger cache *on the
Athlon64 platform*, where the on-die memory controller reduces system RAM
latencies signficantly?
Athlon64 platform*, where the on-die memory controller reduces system RAM
latencies signficantly?
I
infintesimal
(As we march backwards into the future fighting yesterday's battles.)
I wouldn't pay more for a bigger cache on an athlon64.
I'd go for more REAL Mhz.
F
First of One
So I guess Celerys are your thing? Do you also prefer a 486DX-100 to a
Pentium-75?
Pentium-75?
T
Tony DiMarzio
I do! But only because "486 DX4-100" sounds so friggin cool and fast.
