Cyberbeer Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 I tried the search function and came up with no helpful answers. I'm getting ready to order parts to build a new system (today), and would like to know the opinions of socket AM2 Dual Core vs 939 Dual Core. To simplify things I will refer to the socket AM2 CPU's as AM2, and 939 Dual Core as just that, 939. So obviously the AM2's use only DD2, which apparently isnt a huge upgrade over DDR1 from what I've been reading. Will I be "future proofing" myself for a bit by going with AM2? The choice of processors are 4800+ Socket AM2, or 939. The price difference is about 30 bucks, the AM2 being the cheaper. Overall system build difference is about 130 dollars, the 939 being the cheaper since I have plenty of extra RAM lying around here. Performance wise I expect they would perform about the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uber Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 there is 2 OCC reviews on this matter comparing a 3500+ head to head, and a 4200+ head to head.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 jee a 4400+ might perform @ 4400+ speeds right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uber Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 FYI the 939 is a SMIDGE faster, and if you buy AM2 dont get a Gigabyte board. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 do you really think you'll upgrade your processor? cpu socket types don't seem to be lasting that long these days, just think about how many socket types there has been in JUST the last 2 years... then think about how often you upgrade your processor... i've had the following on 939: 3200 winchester (NF3) 3500 venice (NF4) 146 (NF4) 146 (NF4) 148 (NF4) 170 (NF4) so that's 6 cpus in the space of 2 years... i'd consider that to be pretty much the beginning and end of the 939 socket... do you really think ddr2 based AM2 is going to last that long?! i certainly don't... i'd rather wait for ddr3 based amd platforms... intel based ddr2 seems a much more efficient platform compared to AM2 i don't really take "future proofing" into account... at one point i was deciding between 754 and 939... the different in channels of ram swung that one... 939 and AM2 seems like almost no difference so i'd go on price and overclocking ability of motherboards... 939 is very mature... are AM2 boards as good at achieving high oc's? maybe.. maybe not.. something to check out i'd probably recommend someone to get a 939 board and cpu for price and matureness of overclocking... *possibly* go AM2 if you think that you might upgrade your cpu in the next 6 months, if not, you almost know that in 6 months time AM2 will be headed towards the discontinued pile Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted October 29, 2006 Posted October 29, 2006 yea, AM2 is no match for the current Conroe performance. If you are really upgrading your rig go for the new Intel processors, they are very fast and not too much of a bankrob. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
apostolics Posted October 29, 2006 Posted October 29, 2006 i never thought id see the day when intel was the best bang for your buck chip. wow the the world changes nothing is set in stone just read as many reviews and make your opinion from those that have already compared the two sockets head to head Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 yes the core2 rigs are faster. but they are also quiet a bit more money than a good performing 939 setup. and lets face it in most apps it worth that 10% difference in speed (which equals what 1/50th of a second or 10 for FPS... neither of which you can actually TELL outside of synthetic benchmarks) for a 30% jump in price. to me that math just doesn't add up for a gamer. now for someone doing a lot of video or cad work the core2's like the x6800 make sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 yes the core2 rigs are faster. but they are also quiet a bit more money than a good performing 939 setup. and lets face it in most apps it worth that 10% difference in speed (which equals what 1/50th of a second or 10 for FPS... neither of which you can actually TELL outside of synthetic benchmarks) for a 30% jump in price. to me that math just doesn't add up for a gamer. now for someone doing a lot of video or cad work the core2's like the x6800 make sense. agreed, 939 is the best overall bang for the buck Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotdamojo06 Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 I agree with hardnrg, you should go with the 939 because there are going to be alot more resources out there for the overclocking experience. You will be able to find better bios updates for the boards, along with things to compare your temps, oc, etc with others data. I would stick with the 939 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberbeer Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Yea after some thought and more research I'm going with an E6600 rig. Parts should be here tomorrow. Sadly, I think I skimped on the mobo :*(. Bought a midrange Intel brand board. I was on a budget but plan to buy a DFI board in the next couple months. I'll see if in I can OC with this board, but its doubtful I will get far. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 unless you bought an i975 badaxxe you won't be oc'n it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now