Which 939 Athlon 64?

So which of the Socket 939 Athlon 64 processors do you reccomend for a Graphics workstation? 3000+, 3200+, 3500+, 3500+ 90 NM, or the 3800+? Please make any comments you feel should be heard.

 

socket 939 is 3500+ 3800+ and fx cpu's not any of those, 3000+ is socket 754

 

AMD just introduced a 3000+ and 3200+ for socket 939.

 

my fault

 

Come on guys, I need opinions

 

anyone know where to buy socket 939 xp 300+ and 3200+ processors then?

 

a store . J/k.

you could try someplaces over across the pond near where i am.

www.tigerdirect.com or .ca
www.zipzoomfly.com

etc... wish i could have been of more help, but i don't live in the UK.

oh and in regards to the cpu choice i voted for the 90NM 3500+

 

939 Pin 3500 90nm

One thing that bugs me is that this CPU is not offered with a retail fan and heatsink. This will up the over all price as you acquire the heatsink and fan. So, if you are going to select this one then you should find out (or ask) about this. If you don't I will. I'm looking at one myself.

 

If you're not gonna overclock, what is the point in getting a 90nm 3500 when a normal one will produce similar noise and is less expensive? I have a normal 3500 and I remeber that when I got it, it was the best value for money over the others looking at the benchmark vs price.


Hope this helps,
ch424

 

90nm means nothing, people say there is a performance increase but I am yet to see a huge gap between 130nm and 90nm. Its just a way for AMD to save a bit of cash.

Now, if this is a graphics workstation where you are doing rendering etc, then get the best you can afford.

 

bragging rights for having a 90nm chip instead of the 130nm chips.

 

The Winchester (90nm) cores do perform better at equal clock speeds, seem to overclock higher, and do run cooler.

Plus, a 3500+ Winchester is only a fiver more expensive than a 3500+ Newcastle at OCUK. And thats the retail box.

Did I say my vote is for the 90nm?

 

they run far cooler. as much as 28watt according to TechReport

28watt is ALOT.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242

3000 with 90nm if you ask m8

 

actually its the same price now, anyways back on topic, if it runs cooler and the price difference is nominal then get the 3500 90 nm, but remember theres a 90nm version of every chip now so if your short on cash theres plenty of cheaper 90nm options available

 

I don't know who to believe over 90nm heat. Some sites say equal, some say lower, some say higher.

 

Heat is about same I think, but clocks is different matter.

 

Considering the room is already like an oven, and the 90nm parts DO run cooler, and there might be some overclocking in store for this machine as a seperate project, a 3500+ 90nm is definitely looking to be the preferred option.

 

The secret is out!

The 90nm chips are not identical to the 130nm chips in scale only

My Vote the 90nm

Matt

 

There's an AMD Athlon 64 4000+ out soon, it's 90nm, and is claimed to offer performance similar to the FX55 but about £100 cheaper. Might be worth looking into.

At this point in time, however, i'd personally go for the 90nm 3500+, as it's a reasonable price and a good speed.