754 vs 939..some benchmarks

[pat]

<A HREF="http://www.presence-pc.com/article-178.html" target="_new"> benchmark</A> between both socket. Interresting graphs, but in french..but pictures worth a thousand worlds thou...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[tmlim]

First of all, I like how they did the game benchmark graphs. 2 resolutions on one graph. Looks good!

Second, I'm surprised that the sempron 3100+ held up so good. I guess they are better than I thought.

Finally, looks like the 939 has a slight advantage, but not enough to pay a lot more for it.

"A delayed game will eventually come out, a bad game is bad forever."
-Shigeru Miyamoto

 

[TheRod]

Second, I'm surprised that the sempron 3100+ held up so good. I guess they are better than I thought.

The Sempron 3100+ has always been a very good CPU. It's an A64 2800+ minus the 64bit instruction a half the cache! Since all benchmarks run in 32bit and AMD architecture is less dependant on cache size. The Sempron 3100+ is a very good "high-end" low cost CPU.

Finally, looks like the 939 has a slight advantage, but not enough to pay a lot more for it.

S939 don't cost much more, you can get a S939 for less than 50$US more moeny. This is not a big deal on a full system. And this ensure a better upgradability.

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green> <- <i>Is this affecting my credibility?</i>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>

 

[Richensw]

The Winchester versions are worth the extra $$$ too.

 

[jlbigguy]

In gaming, it looks like the 754 3000+ outperforms the 939 3000+. This is the processor that I am interested in (from another thread).

The 939 wins in memory bandwidth due to the dual channels, but plain framerate, the 754 is a slightly better performer, due to the 200mhz advantage.


<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>

 

[pat]

"S939 don't cost much more, you can get a S939 for less than 50$US more moeny. This is not a big deal on a full system. And this ensure a better upgradability."

Upgradability...from upgrade: to rise to today's standard,...

In 2 years, will you upgrade your motherboard only to newer standard keeping you then "slow" 939 ou 754 CPU or you will either sell the CPU/mobo/ram and buy like a newer board with that new dualcore cpu and DDR2?

Rather buy the best your money can afford now without thinking about future. if you budget allow a socket 754 3200+ or a 3000+ 939, then go with the 754 3200+. That 50$ more that you could spend for a faster 939...why not on a 3400+ 754...it outperform the 3500+, meaning that you could even push your next upgrade for later.

I dont bash socket 939. if youre ready to spend money and choose, let say, 3500+ 939, well, I'm not sure it is wise. But, if yo say, well, I'll go with a 3800+ then you'll aready have the nice CPU for your next upgrade (note that I said the "nice" and not the good or very good..). OTOH, if you say... well, I need a cool CPU because I want to have fun with overclocking so I dont care about future 'cause I may have blowed out my new board or cpu in 3 month or well, The only motherboard available in my region that have the features I need is only 939, then ..why not.

I've been building computer for me and for other for more than 10 years. I remember when my new 386dx with 4 megs RAM and 40 gigs HDD was hot... From there, I've never upgraded a single part of computer. from new memory to ata 66 to newer socket to newer onboard feature, everytime I was ready to upgrade..I sold the old stuff in a new computer case and got the latest. I felt that I had more for my money, even if I ended to spend more than expected because the whole thing was faster. my old HDD was not slowing dont the whole thing nor my old CPU on my new mobo or my new cpu with my other old stuff. I dont judge the performance of a computer simply by checking how fast is the cpu...or that new ram. My question is : Is this whole system respond fast enough when I'm playing or working on so my money was well spent?

At the end, upgradability might be a good arguement to get the budget for that more expensive parts (yes, I already told my parents to buy me that part because it will last more longer that the cheaper one...) but it my not give you the best for your money now.


-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[fishmahn]

386dx with 4 megs RAM and 40 gigs HDD

Hope you mean 40Meg hard drive

But weren't those WD drives awesome back then... lol

Mike.

 

[scottchen]

Well for me the 939 decision came from the overclocking A 3200+ 754 struggles to 2.4Ghz(from 2.2), while 3200+ 939 hits 2.6Ghz(from 2.0) easily.

 

[endyen]

In what rating does s939 have the advantage? From what I saw, the s754 3000+ and the s754 3200+ beat thier s939 counterparts in almost every application.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

AMD wants us to think that dual channel memory controller can compensate performance loss caused by 9%-10% less clock speed or worth 300+ to 400+ extra PR points. But it's not true.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>

 

[pat]

yes..that was megs...soooooo long ago! I think that it was maxtor or quantum...even had an ALPS...

Compared to floppy I once used on an old 8088 and my cousin 286 16 MHz with an amazing 1 megs of memory...a hDD was awesome, no matter the brand!

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[Koka]

is it me or did it seem that the 754 3200+ was rivaling the 3500 and occasioanlly winning? why is that?

Current Spec: AMD Athlon XP2000+, GeForce4 MX440, 256MB DDR, aOpen Mobo.
Specs By End OF November: AMD Athlon64 3200+, Asus X800XT, 1536MB DDR400, Asus A8N-E-Deluxe

 

[pat]

both run @ 2.2GHz and have the same amount of cache. But, since it has dual channel memory, that create more latency than single channel one, that slowing down the cpu a bit.

memory bandwith for 3200+ 754 is 2949 Mb/s, which is 92% of the 3200 Mb/s. 3500+ is 5595 Mb/s, 87% of the 6400 Mo/s.

Maybe with some apps, that can apply for something.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[phial]

some games like memory bandwidth, like quake3 for example, so it could be more beneifial in some circumstances to have the extra bandwidth over the extra 200mhz core clocks
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

 

[Spitfire_x86]

These cases are usually tie, because it's very hard to overcome 10% clock speed loss.

And special circumstances doesn't justfy a generalized PR boost.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>

 

[jlbigguy]

<font color=blue>"I remember when my new 386dx with 4 megs RAM and 40 gigs HDD was hot..."</font color=blue>

That's as far back as you go?

Not to date myself, but I remember when my upgrade from a cassette recorder to a 5 1/4" single sided single density (90k) floppy disk drive was the most incredible thing to happen to computers. That was my 1978 TRS-80 of course!

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>

 

[pat]

My first computer, my Commodore VIC 20 had a casette recorder (datasette) to store data...that 386 was the first one that I actually assemble.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[phial]

yea.. your probably right.were talking about 3gb/sec to almost 6gb/sec .. but yea, I tend to agree.

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

 

[fishmahn]

That's about my era too...

I still have my C64 with floppies in the garage. But that was my 2nd C64 - broke the first one (with cassette) somehow.

Mike.

 

[Starfishy]

I think we got side-tracked with this thread a little, but even though I am biased (being the proud owner of a s939 3200+) I still like that they will be continued in the future and that my system will continue to be upgradable. I was scared to buy a s754 knowing that in a few years I might want to upgrade. For me the costs were very comparable and it was well worth taking the slight performance hit.

 

[phial]

by the time you upgrade your cpu youll probably be upgrading your mobo anyways

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Not to date myself, but I remember when my upgrade from a cassette recorder to a 5 1/4" single sided single density (90k) floppy disk drive was the most incredible thing to happen to computers. That was my 1978 TRS-80 of course!

Wow. Same here, but with a C=64.

Then later, when I got into high school, I finally got that massive upgrade to 640KB of RAM for my Tandy. :O (It still had no hard drive though.)

Then one day I got a new PC with it's speedy 4x CD ROM and I remember how superior I felt to those schmucks with single speed CD drives!

At least I've never programmed on paper cards. :\

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

by the time you upgrade your cpu youll probably be upgrading your mobo anyways

I have to agree. :\ It works out that way for me every time. New CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new video, new HD...

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>

 

[Starfishy]

Wow, I'm surprised to hear that you guys upgrade all of that at once?? Is that really an "upgrade"?? Or just a "new" system?? I have, at least twice, upgraded my mobo without upgrading my CPU, and vice versa. I try to add 1 or 2 things a year to keep my system up to date, or as close as I can.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Wow, I'm surprised to hear that you guys upgrade all of that at once?? Is that really an "upgrade"?? Or just a "new" system?? I have, at least twice, upgraded my mobo without upgrading my CPU, and vice versa. I try to add 1 or 2 things a year to keep my system up to date, or as close as I can.

A new system <i>is</i> an upgrade, especially if you build it yourself. Seriously though, any time that I've ever ugpraded my CPU I've also upgraded my mobo, usually building a new system in the process. That's not to say that I haven't upgraded RAM, HD, video, CD/DVD ROM, CD/DVD burner, etc. from time to time without upgrading the CPU. It's just to say that any time that I've upgraded the CPU, I've built a new system doing it because the old system was just too oudated to support a CPU worth its money. Plus you get all new features <i>and</i> get to keep a working backup PC for entertainment or sale to recover upgrade costs.

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>