If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Help me sort out the AMD Athlon 64 CPU models
I'm thinking of building a new high-end system (not bleading edge, no overclocking). The primary justification is Photoshop CS. Pricewatch shows 11 different Athlon64 models ($126-$739) differing in clock speed, cache size, and bus speed. I believe the FX models are now "history" so we are talking about a choice of 8 models. It's commonly said that in 32 bit mode am AMD64 is faster than any Intel Pentium chip. How accurate is that statement ? I'll hand-wave and guess that as a single-user system running a compute-intensive single process that crunches multi-MB chunks of data in memory in a linear fashion, bus speed and clock trump cache size. I'm not sure what CPU models that would indicate. A few weeks ago I heard that AMD was about to announce new models and/or prices. Has that happened yet. I'd just as soon wait for that. FWIW I've been using 64bit servers for almost 10 years, and know the tradeoffs of 32bit and 64bit. I want to buy in the price-performance "sweet spot". I know anything that I buy today will seem obosete 3 months later. That's life. Comments ? Thanks -- Al Dykes ----------- adykes at p a n i x . c o m |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It's commonly said that in 32 bit mode am AMD64 is faster than any
Intel Pentium chip. How accurate is that statement ? About as accurate as any blanket statement that X is faster than Y. It depends on the benchmark. Athlon 64s tend to be faster than similarly priced P4s in games and office applications, whereas P4s still rule the content encoding and synthetic memory bandwidth benchmarks. Athlon 64s are, however, generally faster than similarly clocked Athlon XPs--thanks largely to their integrated memory controllers (and, to an extent in certain benchmarks, their SSE2 support). This is why, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to buy a new Athlon XP system anymore, when an Athlon 64 2800+ can be had for less than $150 and will outperform even a $200+ Athlon XP 3200+. FWIW I've been using 64bit servers for almost 10 years, and know the tradeoffs of 32bit and 64bit. I want to buy in the price-performance "sweet spot". I know anything that I buy today will seem obosete 3 months later. That's life. My suggestion is the S754 Athlon 64 3000+ (about $175 currently). The single-channel memory interface looks a lot slower in synthetic memory bandwidth tests, but real-world benchmarks don't seem to show a whole lot of difference. Certainly not enough to justify the high price of S939 CPUs (the cheapest of which is still over $400). Of course, in three months this will probably change, leaving me to regret the S754 CPU I just bought. But, as you say, that's life. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Raj wrote:
I would still wait for the 939 boards (Nforce 3), I heard they will be the higher end socket board and will be around for a long time, and it will be more stable to as well. What's to wait for ? newegg shows several 939-socket mobos and 5 AMD processors. A price drop ? The cheapest 939-flavor CPU is more than twice the price of a 754-socket CPU. The mobo is more expensive, also. What's the advantage. I see the mobo takes the same memory as the 754, so it can't be much faster. Does it interlace the memory cycles ? Mow big a win is that ? "Lachoneus" wrote in message ... It's commonly said that in 32 bit mode am AMD64 is faster than any Intel Pentium chip. How accurate is that statement ? About as accurate as any blanket statement that X is faster than Y. It depends on the benchmark. Athlon 64s tend to be faster than similarly priced P4s in games and office applications, whereas P4s still rule the content encoding and synthetic memory bandwidth benchmarks. Athlon 64s are, however, generally faster than similarly clocked Athlon XPs--thanks largely to their integrated memory controllers (and, to an extent in certain benchmarks, their SSE2 support). This is why, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to buy a new Athlon XP system anymore, when an Athlon 64 2800+ can be had for less than $150 and will outperform even a $200+ Athlon XP 3200+. FWIW I've been using 64bit servers for almost 10 years, and know the tradeoffs of 32bit and 64bit. I want to buy in the price-performance "sweet spot". I know anything that I buy today will seem obosete 3 months later. That's life. My suggestion is the S754 Athlon 64 3000+ (about $175 currently). The single-channel memory interface looks a lot slower in synthetic memory bandwidth tests, but real-world benchmarks don't seem to show a whole lot of difference. Certainly not enough to justify the high price of S939 CPUs (the cheapest of which is still over $400). Of course, in three months this will probably change, leaving me to regret the S754 CPU I just bought. But, as you say, that's life. -- Al Dykes ----------- adykes at p a n i x . c o m |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I would still wait for the 939 boards (Nforce 3), I heard they will be the
higher end socket board and will be around for a long time, and it will be more stable to as well. "Lachoneus" wrote in message ... It's commonly said that in 32 bit mode am AMD64 is faster than any Intel Pentium chip. How accurate is that statement ? About as accurate as any blanket statement that X is faster than Y. It depends on the benchmark. Athlon 64s tend to be faster than similarly priced P4s in games and office applications, whereas P4s still rule the content encoding and synthetic memory bandwidth benchmarks. Athlon 64s are, however, generally faster than similarly clocked Athlon XPs--thanks largely to their integrated memory controllers (and, to an extent in certain benchmarks, their SSE2 support). This is why, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to buy a new Athlon XP system anymore, when an Athlon 64 2800+ can be had for less than $150 and will outperform even a $200+ Athlon XP 3200+. FWIW I've been using 64bit servers for almost 10 years, and know the tradeoffs of 32bit and 64bit. I want to buy in the price-performance "sweet spot". I know anything that I buy today will seem obosete 3 months later. That's life. My suggestion is the S754 Athlon 64 3000+ (about $175 currently). The single-channel memory interface looks a lot slower in synthetic memory bandwidth tests, but real-world benchmarks don't seem to show a whole lot of difference. Certainly not enough to justify the high price of S939 CPUs (the cheapest of which is still over $400). Of course, in three months this will probably change, leaving me to regret the S754 CPU I just bought. But, as you say, that's life. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 12:59:31 -0400, Al Dykes wrote:
The cheapest 939-flavor CPU is more than twice the price of a 754-socket CPU. The mobo is more expensive, also. And there's only minimal performance increase with the same clocked/cached cpu's. Anyone telling you that 939 is way faster has more money than brains. The only difference in the 724 and 939 us the dual channel memory bus. Now if you run bandwidth benachmarks all day you can see considerably higher numbers with the 939. But run mormal apps, and there's not much dofference. This alticle made give you some insight between single and dual channel. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=5 What's the advantage. You get to pay a lot more for the dual channel.:-) -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
And there's only minimal performance increase with the same clocked/cached
cpu's. Anyone telling you that 939 is way faster has more money than brains. The only difference in the 724 and 939 us the dual channel memory bus. Now if you run bandwidth benachmarks all day you can see considerably higher numbers with the 939. But run mormal apps, and there's not much dofference. This alticle made give you some insight between single and dual channel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ The Hyper Transport buss is 1 GHZ on the 939 and is only 800 MHZ on the 754 cpu's. Dont khow how much this will help but it is higher. DOUG |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:57:48 +0000, Courseyauto wrote:
And there's only minimal performance increase with the same clocked/cached cpu's. Anyone telling you that 939 is way faster has more money than brains. The only difference in the 724 and 939 us the dual channel memory bus. Now if you run bandwidth benachmarks all day you can see considerably higher numbers with the 939. But run mormal apps, and there's not much dofference. This alticle made give you some insight between single and dual channel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ The Hyper Transport buss is 1 GHZ on the 939 and is only 800 MHZ on the 754 cpu's. Dont khow how much this will help but it is higher. DOUG The Chipset provides the bus clock, not the cpu. If a 754 and 939 board use the same chipset, they are both capable of the same speeds. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I've got the 1000(5x) HT option on my Chaintech VNF-3 250(socket 754) mobo.
------------------------ The Hyper Transport buss is 1 GHZ on the 939 and is only 800 MHZ on the 754 cpu's. Dont khow how much this will help but it is higher. DOUG |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Firstly the FX chip is NOT obsolete, this is AMD's flagship and is a bit
faster than the rest of the range, in effect this chip is an Opteron (server chip) with a faster clock speed and is intended for game junkies. So if you want the best then get this. Secondly where on earth did you get the idea that 754 chips and motherboards are half the cost of a 939 setup???? a high spec 939 board costs in the UK about 80-90 pounds the same 754 board is 80-90 pounds. there is a 10 percent price difference between 754 and 939 (939 being more) but that is about it. Its pretty pointless getting a 754 board as the 939 supports more chips and AMD will support this chip more than the 754 flavour. Dual channel memory is a waste of time, it is another marketing ploy to get you to buy another motherboard, the REAL difference between a top non dual channel board and a dual channel board is ZERO , in fact take the MSI KT600 Delta board (socket a board) which is a single channel board and out performs all the NVIDA dual channel boards. Visit www.tomshardware.com if you don't believe me. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
my new mobo o/c's great | rockerrock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 9 | June 30th 04 08:17 PM |
Slowest Athlon 64 humbles fastest P4 in gaming | Tone-EQ | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | December 15th 03 05:09 PM |
Athlon 64 Shuttle XPC reviewed; P4 hammered again! | Supertimer | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | October 13th 03 03:25 PM |
AMD Athlon 64FX first impressions | Chris | General | 14 | September 29th 03 02:22 PM |
Asking for recommandations on CPU & Mainboard | _Jung | Homebuilt PC's | 7 | September 1st 03 01:45 AM |