Athlon 64-bit Socket 939
antifreeze
The guy with the goods! Join Date: 2003-05-12 Member: 16232Members, Constellation
The guy with the goods! Join Date: 2003-05-12 Member: 16232Members, Constellation
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Your Experience</div> I currently work for a computer services company which will only build Pentium based systems, which honestly I think is a bit crappy. Shortly after my birthday (the 14th) I’m hoping to buy an Athlon 64 and motherboard, but I have everyone at work giving me grief for wanting an AMD system because they are Slow, Power Hungry, unreliable and not compatible with all programs. My 4 Year old K7 2GHz disagrees though.
Now to the questions. All those people with Athlon 64-Bit systems preferably of the 939 variety what are your experiences? I’m quite interested to know how well the Cool 'n' quiet tech works as I want to make a pc which spends most of the time on. The final question is have you had any problems with lockups caused by the processor.
Now to the questions. All those people with Athlon 64-Bit systems preferably of the 939 variety what are your experiences? I’m quite interested to know how well the Cool 'n' quiet tech works as I want to make a pc which spends most of the time on. The final question is have you had any problems with lockups caused by the processor.
Comments
For fast, singlethreaded performance, go for a Venice core and OC it to hell.
The CPU causing a lockup? You mean while running an application? As long as your motherboard's BIOS accepts the CPU and it boots correctly, it will run any code an Intel based CPU can. They are both based on the x86 architecture, after all.
From what I've heard, Cool 'N Quiet is a bit buggy and really shouldn't be the crux of the argument for buying socket 939. You should leave it off if you plan on having the computer run most of the time.
For gaming, any A64 will beat the pants off its Intel counterpart, no exceptions. But for multimedia content creation, you can't really beat Netburst.
Looking at power consumption, the 90nm Winchesters and Venices (and Manchesters and Toledos if you're looking at dual core) are actually very low power consumers. Smithfields and Prescotts will generate lots of heat and suck in a lot of energy due to the architectural disadvantages of Netburst, though.
If you could tell us your budget, I'd be happy to give out suggestions as to what parts you could buy.
(and if you do decide on an AMD based system, go dual core, OC the hell out of it, and then bring it to work and benchmark it while watching the faces of your coworkers as your system demolishes their Pentium based computer)
<a href='http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Manufactory=1028&PropertyCodeValue=507%3A17007&PropertyCodeValue=517%3A7439&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=2601%3A16268&PropertyCodeValue=2663%3A16752&PropertyCodeValue=0&description=&MinPrice=&MaxPrice=&SubCategory=343&Submit=Property' target='_blank'>click</a>
As for an overclocked Dual Core i'd rather hang back on that. They are still pretty expensive and would prefer a nice venice 3Ghz.
If i did bench it i would probably go against the managers machines which are
3.2Ghz HT P4
1Gig DDR2 Ram
80Gb Sata Seagate
Intel onboard graphics
Those machines aren't the fastest, but going up against the faster machines which are rackmount proliants would be a little unfair.
Get an AMD 64 3200+ Venice core. Fast, reliable and super stable. OC the hell out of it if you want, it can take it.
Get an AMD 64 3200+ Venice core. Fast, reliable and super stable. OC the hell out of it if you want, it can take it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just ordered AMD 64 (3200+) and asus motherboard the other day and put them together. It KILLS my P4 2.4ghz....
Software incompatability? None.
Power issues? None. The CPU never goes above 50C, is 32C ide, and 45C under load on average.
Slow? Nope. Maybe on brute force things like movie encodes, but for games and everything else.. it's t3h win.
Also that claim your coworkers stated about AMD being slow... *couch* bull**** *cough*
Most of the time AMD is faster and OC's better, however Intel is usually better in office applications.Thats usually the reason for companies to use Intel. That or they have a discount thing going with Intel and don't want to break it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
AMD is the best way to go since they seem to have the upper hand at the moment. With better cpu's or comparable ones for cheaper prices
The upgraded specs would be:
Athlon 64-Bit 3000 Venice
No idea for the motherboard - Must have SATA, AGP, LAN and Cool 'n' Quiet Tech
756 x DDR 2100 (i think) - Considering upgrade to DDR2
Gainward Ti4200 128Mb - Old but reliable, upgrade in nearish future to a 6600Gt
1 x SATA 160Gb Maxtor - OS Drive
1 x ATA 120Gb Maxtor - Storage Drive
From there it's all the usual bit's such as DVD, CDRW, floppy, case, fire extinguisher.
The idea behind this machine is to have a sort of media centre for music, video, tv, dvd's, etc
Ohter then that it seems like a good system, but (here I go again <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) I would go for one Western digital raptor 74gb for the OS and other programs which need speed. And maybe a 200gb maxtor for data storage. You get a lot more performance this way
I personnally have 2x 30gb Raptor Western Digitals and big data disks in another server pc, but thats just me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Socket M2 (2006) will support DDR2.
I think you should post the parts you're buying to let us check for compatability issues.
By the way, get a gig of PC3200. I mean, it's cheap now. 80 USD for 2*512.
Edit:
Kouji San:
Latencies benefited the K7 architecture a lot because their memory latency was higher than their Northwood counterparts. Latency now plays a minimal role in performance (thanks to the on-die memory controller, memory latency is already ridiculously low) with any socket 754 or 939 CPU.
But you're right about the Pentium 4s, all Netburst based CPUs are highly dependent on bandwith to fill their long pipelines. Slap on a L2 and L3 cache for extra bandwith as well.
<a href='http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=54472' target='_blank'>http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/in...oduct_uid=54472</a>
As for the DDR2 thing i didn't know. I hadn't looked into the ram situation yet, but the last 4 machine i built at work had DDR2 in them and i guessed AMD would have support but hadn't checked up on it.
Are those raptor drives the 10000+ RPM things? My HDD are fine for the moment, If i need to in the future though i will just clone my drives.
And therefore you can conclude that AMD products and users are superior.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yes
[edit]
DragonMech:
What about people who aren't glued to brand names like me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Intel vs AMD / Ati vs Nvidia. I always choose the best product performance in the fields I use the pc, not the brand. I would even get myself an Apple if I was into hardcore/professional video editing even if I think they look ugly and the macOS is weird to use <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And therefore you can conclude that AMD products and users are superior.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted For Truth
The company i work for claim they kept getting AMD CPU's back after burning out, etc etc etc. So now they dont make any AMD based systems, however they will maintain them and try to sell Intel in the process. Honestly, i think the reason for this is they used to spend about £30 on a motherboard which in the day didn't get you thermal protection, so every now and then a user would wrap it in carpet or something stupid and it would overheat.
I want to try and convince them AMD systems are not only cheap but very powerful and reliable.
Option 1:
<a href='http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144185' target='_blank'>Dual Maxtor 250 GB drive</a>
SATA 150, 16MB cache, 7200 RPM, 250 GBs each
300$ + shipping
Option 2:
<a href='http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144160' target='_blank'>Dual WD Raptors</a>
SATA 150, 8 MB cache, 10000 RPM, 74 GBs each.
320$ + shipping.
Which one would be faster? The Maxtors have 16MB caches, but are only 7200 RPM; the Raptors on the other hand are 10K RPM but only have 8MB caches. Also, the Maxtors give me an extra 350 GBs of space to play with. What would be the best for gaming?
Only way to be sure is to test them both, since this is just guess work based on logic that is <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Having lots of fast RAM will, though. Games cache information to the RAM so they can access them easily while in game.
The 10k Raptors are overpriced tbh.
[EDIT] This is especially true becuase my laptop has a 60 Gb HD right now, and I'm always having to unistall games or delete files to make room for.... stuff. >_>
Today i got my unbiased manager to actually agree AMD have pulled ahead at the moment because Intel are having trouble with Heat. However he maintained that he would continue using P4 for desktop buisness machines purely for reliability reasons. Being a buisness they build alot of machines, back in the day they used duron's and k7's they had a failure rate of 1 in 2 machines within the first 12 months. This seems a bit high to me.
I'd like to see them use Athlon 64 in the high spec design machines they build, but they are so scared of them because of the cost of maintaining the things if they go wrong. But i have taken a step in the right direction, a manager admitting AMD are good in some circumstances. If i could prove the reliability of them i think they would use them again.
On another note i have been given the go ahead to redevelop their website and add an online shop <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Nowadays, the K8 processors had the new-hawtness title of "Gaming CPU of choice", and the P4's have the more serious title of "Music/Viedo encoders CPU"
I could go into the details, but unless provoked, I'll be keeping my knowledge of pipelines to myself...
Choose accordingly.