s754 3200 vs s939 3000

[jgravance]

what would the performace difference be between a socket 754 3200 and a socket 939 3000? I can get them both for very close in price(around $10 more for the 3000). stepping for 3200 is CAAMC, stepping for 3000 is CBBFD.

 

[Icepick]

socket 754 3200+ Newcastle @ 2.2GHz will perform better than a socket 939 3000+ Venice at 1.8GHz.

 

[thegimp03]

I would go for the socket 939 just for the future proofing it gives you. Plus you can overclock that 3000+ pretty easily to the 3200+ speeds.

 

[Hacp]

Yes but you can also overclock the 3200+. Nothing wrong with socket 754, esp if you don't care about dual core support.

 

[Lord Banshee]

Get the 939 chip.. They are colder chips (newcastle run HOT) and they usally overclock better. and you can always add an X2 when the time is right.

 

[Hacp]

Cant beleive how brainwashed people are.

 

[rammstein junkie]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Cant beleive how brainwashed people are.

whats that supposed to mean?

 

[Chef Brian]

Originally posted by: rammstein junkie

Originally posted by: Hacp
Cant beleive how brainwashed people are.

whats that supposed to mean?

I think he means that AMD has us all brainwashed to buy new components for the purposes of futureproofing, then releases a new socket design a year later.

And he's right lol

 

[MaverickBP]

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
Get the 939 chip.. They are colder chips (newcastle run HOT) and they usally overclock better. and you can always add an X2 when the time is right.

 

[mwmorph]

My newcastle, actually it's termed paris in CPU-Z since it has a A64core with great ocing but only 256k chache(2.4 at stock, 1.8ghz at 1.2V, offically termed a 3300+ and i got it DIRT CHEAP(OEM), cost me a little more than a 3000+ Newcastle and chache tests show performance impact is pratically nil) but it runs very cool. 36*c idle and around 48-51* load no oc. It runs well and lets face it, for those like me that replace machine rather than upgrade or dont upgrade yearly, 939 isnt needed.

754 is perfectly capable and you dont need 939 to be happy. Get a S754 pci-e NF4 mb and a decent video card and be happy with it.

 

[Icepick]

The op didn't say that overclocking was an option.

If we're talking about the two CPUs at stock speeds and at the same price point then the socket 754 3200+ (Newcastle) is the better value. The 3200+ Newcastle will kick the a$$ of the 3000+ Venice at all games, encoding and general use tasks. The newcastles run at 1.5v instead of 1.4 for the Venice core so if that .10 volts is important to you (I don't know why it would matter) then I guess you should go with the socket 939 option. Sure the Newcastle might run 2 or 3 degrees warmer but, that's not really much of an issue either IMO.

"Futureproofing" is nothing more than a fantasy and is totally irrelevant to this conversation. It's been shown time and again that futureproofing is a myth. I purchased a socket 939 Winchester CPU in October with the idea that it could be upgraded to dual core. Now that the dual cores are available I feel they're too expensive for me at the moment (>$500) and if I were to upgrade at this point I'd get a new PCI express mobo anyway.

 

[Zebo]

3200 754 beats the 3200 939 so it will destroy a 3000 939. That's 400Mhz you're giving up!!!

 

[Lithan]

939 is futureproof... just ~ 1.5 years of it though. It can support dual core, but I'd bet by the time you Would upgrade to 939 dual core, you wont want to unless you are restricted by price.

 

[jgravance]

thank you guys for the replys, i think i will be going with the 754, because it looks to be faster and motherboards are much cheaper (though, could anyone tell me how much of a difference dual channel makes?). i am also not too worried about future proofing at the moment, by the time i usually upgrade parts a newer processor/socket has come out anyway. i am also not very much of an overclocker, so i think the 3200 will suit me fine.

 

[Hacp]

dual channel makes 3-5% of a difference when you don't overclock your memory. However, when you overclock your memory, the difference is a little less, more like 2-4%.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
Get the 939 chip.. They are colder chips (newcastle run HOT) and they usally overclock better. and you can always add an X2 when the time is right.

BS, 130nm chips run cool enough, I wouldn't consider them hot.

Who gives a crap if the 90nm chips are 10 degress cooler?

Wont make any difference as long as your not ocing.

 

[Hacp]

Even if you are ocing, newcastles are no slouches either. Although you can't get past 2.6 easily, you can generally get past 2.5 with newcastles. As always with ocing, nothing is garenteed.

 

[Jeeper94]

I am very happy with my S754 Newcastle and do not plan on upgrading for another year or so to a 3800x2 . IMO my Soltek SL-K8AN2E-GR paired with my 3000+ is a very capable system.

While the Venice is nice, it most certainly is not required.

 

[n7]

I agree that the s754 3200+ NC will offer much better performance.

For OCing though, i'm guessing the s939 Venice would win easily.

 

[jgravance]

sorry i didnt clarify guys, but the 939 is actually a winchester, not a venice, which makes the 3200 look like an even better deal, im guessing.

 

[bradley]

Hands down, I personally would foresake the incremental speed increase of the Newcastle for the lower power consumption and lower heat output of the Winchester/Venice.

 

[BitByBit]

In applications with lots of memory access such as gaming, there won't be much difference between the two, even with the 400MHz clock difference.
If you intend to build a new system, then go for socket 939. Anad's latest AMD roadmap shows 754 support only for mobile and budget chips.
Also, don't forget the typical overclocking headroom of these two processors.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
Get the 939 chip.. They are colder chips (newcastle run HOT) and they usally overclock better. and you can always add an X2 when the time is right.

Newcastle runs hot? Where did you come from?

My Athlon 64 2800+ Newcastle on STOCK cooling runs FULL LOAD at 35C. Where did you get that it runs hot? All Athlon 64s run cool as a matter of fact, but the 90nm ones run cooler. Heat never has and likely never will be an issue with an Athlon 64.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BitByBit
In applications with lots of memory access such as gaming, there won't be much difference between the two, even with the 400MHz clock difference.
If you intend to build a new system, then go for socket 939. Anad's latest AMD roadmap shows 754 support only for mobile and budget chips.
Also, don't forget the typical overclocking headroom of these two processors.

You would think so... Globally speaking the 3200NC is 15% faster than 3000-939 just as the 400Mhz implies it would be.

Games also the 15%..

http://www.behardware.com/articles/531-7/testing-12-athlon-64s.html

I don't know how much more testing I have to do to prove bandwidth means little with this architecture but it does'nt. Opteron setups have twice the bandwidth as X2's but get mowed down at same speeds. Reason being the A64 architecture is not bandwidth straved because it executes memory calls faster than needed bandwidth with it's incredibly low latency.

 

[SGtheArtist]

I was planning configurations recently and had this same issue. I personally would go with an nForce chipset with PCI Express which would offer a better graphics upgrade path in the future than the older socket which will be restricted to an AGP slot.

However if you do not plan to use this system for games at all then the older socket would be more than plenty for a server or office workstation.

As far as future proofing I simply believe everyone is referring to the best "current" option that offers the most potential for future grades for the life of that system. I agree that the term "future proofing" is a bit misguiding suggesting that a system build today will be relevant for a decade or more, which I'm sure most of us would agree isn't true.

I've found that the majority of my upgrades are video cards so the graphics interface is probably the most important for me. I've only upgraded a CPU once, while I've upgraded graphics cards about 4-5 times now.

Just my thoughts.