CPU advice for socket 939

[F8]

Hi everyone,

Looking for some advice from the dcemuers. My rig is getting a little old, and while purchasing an entirely new system is eventually inevitable, I want to squeeze that last little bit of performance from this PC before forking out a big chunk of cash.

My current specs are: A8N-E MB, AMD Athlon 3000 socket 939 CPU, Geforce 7900 GT, 120 gig Sata I, 320 gig Sata II, 1 gig of Samsung ram

I am looking at either the single-core AMD athlon 4000 or the dual-core AMD athlon x2 3800...both socket 939, which as you may know, is no longer being manufactured. Which CPU, if any, do you guys suggest and why? I'm leaning towards the AMD x2 3800, which I found for a decent deal brand new. Question is, will I see that much of a performance boost from a AMD 3000 to a AMD x2 3800? Or is a single-core 4000 better? Will it help my performance in Oblivion or Stalker? Or just be better for multi-tasking?

[DaMadFiddler]

Ouch...you got screwed. 939 has fewer (and more expensive) options than 940. You're probably better off just suffering through the next however long with the current CPU, and saving that money to use toward your next system.

Frankly, the tables have turned again and Intel is now spanking AMD at most tasks. Just save that money for a Core2 Duo rig; they outperform and underdraw AMD's multi-core offerings, and the price differential is not nearly so great as it used to be between the two companies.

[JellyWarrior]

Yea I'd agree at this stage, Intel has the upper hand at the moment.

Also, don't buy a single core system because these days things are going multi threaded and you'll end up getting much more benefit out of a dual core system, even if it has a slightly lower clock speed.

[F8]

So are you guys saying an AMD x2 3800 for $90 CAD (includ. tax & shipping/handling) isn't worth it? I mean, that's a fraction of the cost of purchasing a whole new rig (i.e. approx $1000). So a AMD x2 3800 honestly isn't worth it at all?

[melancholy]

It's definitely worth it, assuming you have no plans of upgrading your system anytime soon. I have a 939, and even switching from a single core to dual core of the same speed showed a decent speed increase in Vista. So the speed difference between a 3000 single core and a 3800 dual core would be huge. Plus any newer programs will be optimized for dual core, making a single core purchase almost foolish. Gaming wise, it might help your games run a bit better, but the video card is probably going to be the big deciding factor.

At any rate, if you are going to have that PC for a while, I'd say go for it. However, if you have any intentions of upgrading your system in the next year, then you should wait.

[F8]

Right, and if I were to buy the AMD x2 3800, I probably won't upgrade for another two years. I know most PC games are bottlenecked by the CPU and GPU, but in my case, do you think Oblivion would run any better on a AMD x2 3800 compared to what I have now? And no, I'm not planning on getting a new CPU just for Oblivion.


Or maybe I am....LOL.

[APE]

Video cards always produce more speed increases than CPUs. The 939 platform isn't THAT out of date people.

[ace]

Right, and if I were to buy the AMD x2 3800, I probably won't upgrade for another two years. I know most PC games are bottlenecked by the CPU and GPU, but in my case, do you think Oblivion would run any better on a AMD x2 3800 compared to what I have now? And no, I'm not planning on getting a new CPU just for Oblivion.


Or maybe I am....LOL.

Oblivion runs just fine on my rig, at 1280 x 1024 resolution with everything but grass turned all the way up - and even that I have almost all the way. I even have HDR turned on.

OS: WinXP Professional 5.1 SP2 (Build #2600) CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3200+, 2.00 GHz, 512KB Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT (1280x1024x32bpp 60Hz) Sound: Realtek AC97 Audio Memory: Used: 562/1023MB Uptime: 4h 59m 35s HD: Free: 459.75 MB/152.66 GB Connection.

[melancholy]

but in my case, do you think Oblivion would run any better on a AMD x2 3800 compared to what I have now?

Slightly, but I don't think it's going to make a huge difference. I would get it anyway, though, just for the application and OS speed increase.

[Cid Highwind]

Video cards always produce more speed increases than CPUs. The 939 platform isn't THAT out of date people.

I saw my framerate in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic almost double when going from a 3.5 gHz Pentium 4 to a Core 2 Duo e4400.

939 isn't out of date, but these P4 3.0gHz or AMD equivalents are starting to show their age in gaming. You can throw all the graphical horsepower against it you want. Which would mean you can raise the resolution with minimal impact, but I think the time has come these processors are also starting to limit your overall gaming performance. However, but the time a dual core CPU has become the weakest part, your GPU will be outdated a long time ago. That's true

And that's also the problem I have with PC gaming in general. There's hardly any games out there that actually make me happy about having invested in a good videocard. Simply because there's hardly any games nowadays that make good use of it. Look at all the unoptimized junk out there that needs 5 patches only not to make it CTD. Console ports being the worst bunch out there, and Atari games... Then again, with technology improving all the time, I can imagine it being hard for developers to keep up. As soon as one game is finished, a new Direct X version has been released and new hardware is out. There's no single platform to develop for and publishers don't allow the time for optimizations.

Either way, time to cut short this rant. I think you'll see most improvements in the desktop applications, and CPU intense stuff such as large scale RTS games or games that have a lot of physics involved. I consider it a good option, because it's the final step before you need a complete system overhaul, and it's relatively cheap. By the time you can't play PC games anymore, you might wanna look into consoles if you like those games.

[APE]

Video cards always produce more speed increases than CPUs. The 939 platform isn't THAT out of date people.

I saw my framerate in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic almost double when going from a 3.5 gHz Pentium 4 to a Core 2 Duo e4400.

939 isn't out of date, but these P4 3.0gHz or AMD equivalents are starting to show their age in gaming. You can throw all the graphical horsepower against it you want. Which would mean you can raise the resolution with minimal impact, but I think the time has come these processors are also starting to limit your overall gaming performance. However, but the time a dual core CPU has become the weakest part, your GPU will be outdated a long time ago. That's true

The p4 line was a piece of trash, end of story. The Athlon XP routinely trashed p4s clocked 1ghz faster than them, the Athlon64s equivalent was the Pentium-m line that never materialized for the desktop market in any large fashion. CoreDuos came out and was competition to the last round of 939s.

[Cid Highwind]

I'm aware of that, but it's not like you are going to see worlds of difference between a P4 3.0gHz and the Athlon 64 is better in each and every single way, especially if you look at clock per clock performance, and compare it to the power used.

However, is he using a regular 3000+, or an Athlon 64?

Performance wise, I never found my P4 a bad processor, it was fast enough for everything, great at multitasking. It just cost too much power and produced too much heat. So technically there is no doubt the Athlon processors were much better than any netburst CPU. But again, performance wise they weren't that far off.

Another thing to keep in mind is that I have played quite a few games at 3.5 gHz, and that certainly will match a standard Athlon 64 3000+ if we're going to compare things. Not looking for a long discussion on this, but just trying to relativate it to help him with his decision. And in that respect I think it's pretty safe to say that single core 3gHz / 3000+ processors have had their best time. They'll manage, and it differs per game, but a dual core processor will certainly help out when you have a videocard he has, mainly in 2007 games because now some games at least use both processors.

Btw, it is interesting to note that while I did notice a difference when going from 3.0 to 3.5 gHz in Test Drive Unlimited, there wasn't any change at all when ditching the P4 and going Core 2 Duo. Not a single frame per second extra. While like I said, DoMM saw a 75% increase in average framerate.

[butters]

Video cards always produce more speed increases than CPUs. The 939 platform isn't THAT out of date people.

Yes, the 939 had the best bang for your buck a couple of years ago.

[F8]

Another computer question: Does the A8N-E motherboard support 4 memory sticks? I think I have this board:
http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?mode ... =15&l3=171

If so, can I throw in a 1 gig pc3200 samsung stick w/ my other 2x 512mg pc3200 samsung sticks? Will that be a problem for xp?

[ace]

matched pairs!

[Cid Highwind]

Another computer question: Does the A8N-E motherboard support 4 memory sticks? I think I have this board:
http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?mode ... =15&l3=171

If so, can I throw in a 1 gig pc3200 samsung stick w/ my other 2x 512mg pc3200 samsung sticks? Will that be a problem for xp?

It will probably work, just don't try any overclocking or to get tighter timings because you do have some different ram in it. At the family computer here I put in some DDR pc3200 next to some 2700 on the Athlon XP 2600+, runs like a charm. But everything is running at stock speeds. If I would do some overclocking, having mixed stuff wouldn't give the best results.

If you want to be sure, just grab some ram from another PC and test it.

[404NotFound]

You think 939 is bad? I'm running 754...

[Ex-Cyber]

You think 939 is bad? I'm running 754...

Socket A here, and before that it was a "Super7" (post-Pentium-II Socket 7).

[Disheveled DrFreeze]

Video cards always produce more speed increases than CPUs. The 939 platform isn't THAT out of date people.

I saw my framerate in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic almost double when going from a 3.5 gHz Pentium 4 to a Core 2 Duo e4400.

939 isn't out of date, but these P4 3.0gHz or AMD equivalents are starting to show their age in gaming. You can throw all the graphical horsepower against it you want. Which would mean you can raise the resolution with minimal impact, but I think the time has come these processors are also starting to limit your overall gaming performance. However, but the time a dual core CPU has become the weakest part, your GPU will be outdated a long time ago. That's true

The p4 line was a piece of trash, end of story. The Athlon XP routinely trashed p4s clocked 1ghz faster than them, the Athlon64s equivalent was the Pentium-m line that never materialized for the desktop market in any large fashion. CoreDuos came out and was competition to the last round of 939s.

uhm, sorry but you are wrong there, a 2.0 GHz athlon XP (amd athlon XP 2400+ if we are talking Tbred core, 2600+, barton had only 1.8 and 2.1 steps, no 2.0), does not in any way trash a 3.0 GHz P4, northwood or prescott. even a amd athlon xp 3000+ had a slight bit of trouble keeping up with a P4 northwood 3.0. An amd athlon 64 at 2.0 however (3200+ on s939, 3000+ on 754), does beat out a P4 3.0

as for pentium M, thats purely a mobile cpu, as is the core duo (regardless of the fact it was used in several apple desktop machines, it is a mobile cpu), both CPUs are decendants of the venerable P6 architecture (which evolved from the pentium pro to the P2 and P3, to the pentium M, scaling to dual cores for the core duo, and finally core 2 duo)

P4s were trash though, amd put the smackdown on them with the amd64, however with C2D, intel is back on top

(to chime in on the socket yelling, my main rig is s775 (e4300 at 2.4), my laptop is s631 (turion tl56), the media center/dowload pc is s754)

as for the OP, $90 can sounds like a good deal on a x2 3800+ to upgrade a 939 rig, you could get much better performance going intel, but then you would need a new mobo/ram in addition to the cpu

[APE]

Video cards always produce more speed increases than CPUs. The 939 platform isn't THAT out of date people.

I saw my framerate in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic almost double when going from a 3.5 gHz Pentium 4 to a Core 2 Duo e4400.

939 isn't out of date, but these P4 3.0gHz or AMD equivalents are starting to show their age in gaming. You can throw all the graphical horsepower against it you want. Which would mean you can raise the resolution with minimal impact, but I think the time has come these processors are also starting to limit your overall gaming performance. However, but the time a dual core CPU has become the weakest part, your GPU will be outdated a long time ago. That's true

The p4 line was a piece of trash, end of story. The Athlon XP routinely trashed p4s clocked 1ghz faster than them, the Athlon64s equivalent was the Pentium-m line that never materialized for the desktop market in any large fashion. CoreDuos came out and was competition to the last round of 939s.

uhm, sorry but you are wrong there, a 2.0 GHz athlon XP (amd athlon XP 2400+ if we are talking Tbred core, 2600+, barton had only 1.8 and 2.1 steps, no 2.0), does not in any way trash a 3.0 GHz P4, northwood or prescott. even a amd athlon xp 3000+ had a slight bit of trouble keeping up with a P4 northwood 3.0. An amd athlon 64 at 2.0 however (3200+ on s939, 3000+ on 754), does beat out a P4 3.0

Add in the price difference with the fact there was no nForce chipset and the Athlon takes the p4 to the pier with cement shoes, puts a bullet in it's head and lights it on fire then pushes it over after roasting marshmallows.