Socket 939 with 1MB cache?

According to the newest overclockers.com article: http://overclockers.com/articles1009/index02.asp

There will be S939 with 1MB cache? I don't get it, whats the point of buying an Athlon FX then if A64 will get 1MB cache + dual channel....

some poeple have money to buy the best... i wish i was one of the lol

For socket 939s:

If it has 1 MB cache -- it's Athlon 64 FX-5x, not Athlon 64 xxxx+

If it has 512 KB cache -- it's Athlon 64 3500+, 3800+ or 4x00+.

http://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?t=168

Yeah I think you have misinterpreted that article - the 939 they refer to at 1MB L2 cache is part of the supposedly omitted FX range. The article thinks that the move to 939 from 940 for the FX should be mentioned included in the CPUID section - however if the value stays the same for the CPUID for the FX range then there is no need to explicity state whether it is at 940 or 939. It is clearly shown for the A64 range as AMD feel there is a need to clearly show a difference in CPUID value between the 754 and 939 range. Unless................!

Ahh I see, I didn't know that FX cpus would switch over to Socket939 as well, I thought they would remain on 940.

Less cache == cheaper so long as it doesn't neuter the performance (cough Celeron cough). I find it interesting that they are reducing cache sizes to 512K but it's AMD and I suppose they will know what they are doing.

Since

754 CPU's have both version of 512 KB and 1 MB L2 (in 130 nm),
939 CPU's have both version of 512 KB and 1 MB L2 (in 130 nm),
939 CPU's have both version of 512 KB and 1 MB L2 (in 90 nm).

Question:

Is the smaller 512 KB L2 CPU done by

disabling half of the bigger 1 MB L2 core
or
a different core.

It will be a different core, most likely, as it has a different CPUID, and a different stepping.

There are currently 2 types of Hammers out, they are the SledgeHammer (aka Opteron and Athlon64-FX) and the ClawHammer (aka Athlon64)
The NewCastle core will be a totally new core, like a Barton (Claw/Sledgehammer) and a Tbred (newcastle).

Also the new FX will be a ClawHammer, since it now doesn't use registered memory or Socket940 in general.
just take a look at AMD's revision guide for the A64/Opteron and this is pretty easy to see what's gonna happen

I think that 1/2 of the cache is disabled, but the other half is unstable. Doesn't make sense to throw away a 1MB A64 cpu if only a part of it's cache is unstable. Same thing with the whole thorton fiascal.