First Socket 939 CPUs $581 - $830, (a lot more than you thought, OC Detective)

c627627 · May 23, 2004

Athlon 64 3800+ (Socket 939 Newcastle): $829.95
Athlon 64 3500+ (Socket 939 Newcastle): $580.95

Gautam · May 23, 2004

But exactly what I thought, and exactly what I said.

Actually, even I wasn't quite that brutal. I was expecting about $500-$550 for the 3500+.

murrayman · May 23, 2004

damn, that's all she wrote...for me. There is no way I'm going for that much...unless I get that much somehow

.

I thought they'd be somewhere around in that price range, but that much...insanity!?!

hitechjb1 · May 23, 2004

So I think
- mobile A64 754 3000+ 1 MB L2, with x9 multiplier (or 3200+ if price down)
- 250 GB or K8T800 pro motherboard
- 2x512 MB DDR500 or overclock equivalent
- SLK-948 or heat pipe
is the way to do at this time (May 04) for around $600.
This is not a recommendation, as motherboards are not yet available and more results needed, .....

Performance hit is only for memory intensive programs compared to a 939 platform. Detailed numbers on performance in quote.

hitechjb1 said:
For price performance NEW build system, an A64 754 + Nforce3 250 GB is becoming a better choice than Nfoce2 + mobile Barton, as of May 04. This is the reasoning.

These links shows some benchmark analysis of a A64 FX-53, A64 3200+, A64 3000+, a Barton and some P4's.

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2762781#post2762781
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2766934#post2766934

Roughly speaking, when clocking to the same frequencies of CPU, FSB, HT, memory, IMO
the top line FX-53 (which 939 would resemble) is better than a barton by about 24-32% (average over a range of progarms, should look at the detailed breakdown as listed in the links).

An A64 754 with 1 MB L2 would be close to the FX-53 except for memory bandwidth and memory intensive programs. For memory intensive applications, the 939/940 would have an edge on performance over the 754 (with same L2 size and running same frequencies) ranging from 20-80%, as seen from those benchmarks.

An A64 754 with 512 KB L2 would be 2-10% worse than an A64 754 w/ 1 MB L2.
....

A 754 512 KB L2 A64 + 250 GB motherboard can be had around $100 more compared to a Nforce2 + mobile Barton when builiding a NEW system with the A64 technologies + 15-25% average gain over a Barton (at same frequencies).

A 754 1 MB L2 A64 + 250 GB motherboard can be had around $150 more compared to a Nforce2 + mobile Barton when builiding a NEW system with the A64 technologies + 20-30% average gain over a Barton (at same frequencies).

....

As of May 04, here assuming limiting the choice to 754 (939 not out yet):

There have been reviews of some 754 motherboards with Nforce3 250 GB (with GB), hope should be on the street very soon.

The MSI K8N Neo is one that has received good reviews and it has x5 multiplier for the HT bus.
Other good motherboards may be coming soon, if can wait a little bit more.

I think for good price performance,
- e.g.
a 754 3000+ 512 KB L2 with CG rev, NewCastle core (OPN AX) with x10 multiplier,
a 754 mobile 3000+ 1 MB L2, with CG rev, ClawHammer core (OPN AR) with x9 multiplier
- a 754 motherboard w/ 250 GB with 5X HT setting, such as one above or better ones
- SLK-948 (or wait for the heat pipe version)
- 2 x 512 MB memory (DDR500 or overclock equivalent to run 250 MHz+ ASYNC)
(IMO, this combo is coming to a point that it is considered a better choice than a Nforce2 w/ mobile Barton for a NEW build, even considering price).

There are also 754 mobile, 754 mobile DTR, 754 desktop 3200+ 1 MB L2 version, with x10 multiplier.

Target setup:
CPU x9, target to 2.25 - 2.7 GHz
Memory at 250 - 300 MHz, ASYNC, effective BW = 3800 - 4560 MB/s
HT at x3, at least 750 - 900 MHz w/ DDR

....

Gautam · May 23, 2004

Its perfectly logical, in fact. The 3400+ is priced at $400. The 3500+ needs to be priced above this, while also considering that's its basically equivalent in performance to an FX51, which was priced in the mid-700's. The 3800+ can be looked at as equivalent to an FX53. These prices, I'm guessing, will drop by about $100 within a month's time. The 3100+ and 3300+ will hopefully appear as well, although 939 may not be an affordable platform for a while.

murrayman · May 23, 2004

Yeah, (unfortunately), this is all correct

. Most games today are pretty memory intensive, but is it still safe to say that the 3200+ 754's are the way to go for gaming...above my first rig in my sig?

Gautam · May 23, 2004

Games are much more depedant on latency, not raw bandwidth. The 754 will remain very competitive with the 939 in gaming. If gaming demanded that much bandwidth, just about everyone here would have Intels.

hitechjb1 · May 23, 2004

If they are priced according to the PR number, so when the 939 3100+ appears (if it does), the price of 939 3100+ would be around $200-250 or lower at that time. Currently 754 3000+ is ~$220 and 3200+ is ~$280.

A 939 3100+ would become more affordable for a new system, close to what a 754 3000+ today.

When will 939 3100+ come out?

xtrmeocr · May 23, 2004

3 words.

preorder price gouging.

i guaranty with the prices with be much lower when the chips launch.

Gautam · May 23, 2004

The 3100+ and 3300+ only exist in pure speculation. No one has any news about them. It's quite possible that they won't be released for several months, and that AMD will plan to keep the 754 the mainstream platform. It's possible that they won't ever exist, at least not in the timeframe we'd want to expect.

c627627 · May 23, 2004

Yeah, just in case anyone here is thinking about waiting for hypothetical 3300+ or even 3100+ 939s, these are not expected before the end of the year (Q4 2004) at the earliest. The other side of 2005, some would say.

Also, note that Stroligo thinks that "Socket 939 will exist for at least the next three months as a placeholder to scare people into thinking that socket 754 systems aren't too badly priced, so they'll buy them instead."

If Socket 754 and Socket A CPUs are running at same GHz, Socket 754 averages 20% faster so:

hitechjb1 said:
So I think
- mobile A64 754 3000+ 1 MB L2, with x9 multiplier (or 3200+ if price down)
- 250 GB or K8T800 pro motherboard
- 2x512 MB DDR500 or overclock equivalent
- SLK-948 or heat pipe
is the way to do at this time (May 04) for around $600.

Any head to head VIA K8T800 Pro vs. nForce3 250 GB comparisons from reliable web sites yet?

Silent Buddha · May 23, 2004

Ed thinks that after the price-gouging settles down, we'll be looking at $650 for the A64 3800+ and $400 for the A64 3500+. AMD is being real dumb. This just gives me more proof that my current upgrade (see sig) will last me for a long time, say mid-2005. For all you looking to get a Socket 754, get a Clawhammer, not a Newcastle. Newcastles oc better but don't have dual-channel yet and the loss of cache really hurts them. See this comparison.

EDIT: I wonder where Ed got his prices from?

Gautam · May 23, 2004

They're not being dumb; they're being smart, taking on chipzillas ways. What would cost them more, a 2.2ghz processor with 512k of cache, or a 2ghz proc with 1mb? The former of course. Greater yields, low production costs. Doesn't make sense for them to keep using 1mb in their "lower-end" line. And as for DC, they know that for the general public, even most enthusiasts, it won't make a significant difference. But there always will be some who crave that last bit of performance. What do you do with them? Milk them for all they're worth.

Of course, in the meantime, I'll be sitting back and enjoying my purchase.

hitechjb1 · May 23, 2004

As the price of 1 MB L2 ClawHammer has come down to about the same as a 512 KB L2 NewCastle, absorded by the default frequency difference, it is preferred to pick a ClawHammer CPU for building a price performance 754 system.

The only missing part is a good 250 GB or K8T800 Pro motherboard. Hope soon.

The thread A64 CPUs, chipsets, motherboards keeps these information handy for reference.

Originally posted by hitechjb1
Typical Overclocking System

Price performance system
- A64 754 1 MB L2 ClawHammer, CPU revsion CG
(as price moves down, move to higher PR with small price differential)
- 3000+ with x9 multiplier (for air/water cooling)
- 3200+ with x10 multiplier (for water/extreme cooling)
- 1.5V desktop, 1.5V mobile DTR, 1.4V mobile CPU
- 250 GB or K8T800 pro motherboard
- 2x512 MB DDR500 or overclock equivalent
- SLK-948 or heat pipe
- As of May 04, cost around USD 600.

Target setup:
BIOS FSB setting: 250 - 300 MHz (FSB is a setting, not physically per se)
CPU 1 MB L2 ClawHammer CG revision
- x9, target to 2.25 - 2.7 GHz
- x10, target to 2.5 - 3 GHz
Memory at 250 - 300 MHz, ASYNC, effective BW = 3800 - 4560 MB/s
HT at x3, at least 750 - 900 MHz w/ DDR, or x4 from 1000 and up

Originally posted by hitechjb1
On performance difference

The numbers on performance made here are based on two benchmark results and analysis of some A64 FX, A64 754 ClawHammer (1MB L2), A64 754 NewCastle (512KB L2), Barton, P4's, ...

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2762781#post2762781
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2766934#post2766934

For 939 with 1 MB L2, when available, it would perform similar to a 940 FX/Opteron, running at the same frequenies.

For 939, if used with unbuffered memory module, can be slightly faster than a 940 due to less memory overhead.

Both of 939/940 dual channel have 80% more effective memory bandwidth than the 754, hence they are always better in performance, especially for memory intensive programs, up to 20-80% higher performance.

From a few gaming benchmarks, a A64 FX/939 at 2.4 GHz performs 12-20% better than an A64 754 with 1MB L2 at 2.0 GHz, and 15-29% better than an A64 754 with 512 L2 at 2.0 GHz (memory bus, HT bus same frequencies). Not clear if 754 CPU's were clocked to same speed, what would the performance difference be, as the performance difference can be attributed to both memory bandwidth and CPU raw power, but these numbers put an upper bound on gaming performance of 939 over 754.

If not counting memory intensive programs, the advantage of 939/FX to 754 is only few % (say 5%) on the average.

Running at the same frequencies of CPU, memory (and bandwidth), HT, the performance difference between a 512 KB L2 and a 1 MB L2 would average around 5%, between 2-10%+ depending on the application.

OC Detective · May 23, 2004

Sorry but I am not buying it (and I dont mean the cpu!) Lets look at the current pricing for the 3400+ clawhammer = shade over 400 bucks do you really believe the 3700+ clawhammer will be twice the price at nearly 820 bucks? The front page has reported these prices without a link - I for one am skeptical - but then again I always am!
The other thing (which I often harp on about) is that AMD cannot do this in isolation - if Intel dont have processors (and I am not talking about EE's but E's) at the same price then AMD cannot follow suit - expect AMD to match Intels pricing strategy.....

Gautam · May 23, 2004

The $500 pricetag for the 3500+ is quite logical at this time, no?

Another tidbit. Trustworthy or not, time will tell.

Silent Buddha · May 23, 2004

I know they are being smart right now...to make money. But what is smart in the long term? Losing potential customers they never had to Intel again?

*sigh* AMD really confuses me sometimes.

OC Detective · May 23, 2004

The 3500+ tag might be realistic the problem I have is that I really cannot see an A64 being priced higher than a FX - under any circumstances as it is like Intel pricing an E higher than an EE. It then confuses potential FX buys as to their supposed "premium" value. As I have said I would expect AMD to price their top line similar to the top line of the Intel (non EE). (which will be USD637 with the second tier at USD417)

Northern Expose · May 23, 2004

Gautam said:
Its perfectly logical, in fact. The 3400+ is priced at $400. The 3500+ needs to be priced above this, while also considering that's its basically equivalent in performance to an FX51, which was priced in the mid-700's. The 3800+ can be looked at as equivalent to an FX53. These prices, I'm guessing, will drop by about $100 within a month's time. The 3100+ and 3300+ will hopefully appear as well, although 939 may not be an affordable platform for a while.

Given that, I'd say $580.00 is QUITE reasonable for FX-51 performance, given that the few online stores that still carry the Socket 940 FX-51 are asking $730.00ea. Remember...AMD can only survive with high 939 prices for a little while following its release, and then soon after it will be forced to compete with Intel pricing. This holds true EVEN if the initial supply of 939s is weak.

OC Detective · May 23, 2004

I would expect the price of a 3400+ (in whatever variant of socket) to be under 300 bucks by September - to me that is when I will buy.

First Socket 939 CPUs $581 - $830, (a lot more than you thought, OC Detective)

c(n*199780) Senior Member

Senior Benchmark Addict

Member

Senior Member

Senior Benchmark Addict

Member

Senior Benchmark Addict

Senior Member

Member

Senior Benchmark Addict

c(n*199780) Senior Member

Member

Senior Benchmark Addict

Senior Member

Member

Senior Benchmark Addict

Member

Member

Registered

Member

Similar threads