First S939 Review!!

[hitechjb1]

AMD just released a few 1.4V Mobile A64 754 CPU model 2800+, 3000+, 3200+ with 1 MB L2, which are based on ClawHammer core. It is in the May rev. of the AMD tech doc.

I have seen 1 MB L2 ClawHammer as late as 0418, which is in 2nd half of April 04.

These mobile should be very good for cost-effective A64 754 overclocking system. On the average, they are about tie with A64 939 with 512 KB L2 and within few % of performance to a 939 with 1 MB L2, assuming running same frequencies of CPU, memory and HT bus, for most programs, except a class of memory intensive applications, ....

With a good 250 GB motherboard, a Mobile A64 3000+ ClawHammer would make a very effective A64 system.


More details about the models, steppings, target systems, performance can be found in
A64 CPUs, chipsets, motherboards

 

[Gautam]

Ah, good news. I may have to give one of these mobiles a shot. Maybe after you try one out this time, though.

 

[OC Detective]

Ok aside from the fact that these are x-86 benchmarks and although the cpu might be mature (but you dont know if this was an ES) the mobo most certainly is not (cant even overclock the Asus and x-86 say there is a black mark against their bios!). If you compare the natural progression 3400 v 3500 (you would only expect 3% difference) what you get is 9 benchmarks for 3500 and 7 for 3400 with 1 tied (1 for the 3500 is the obvious bandwidth benchmark).
Breaking this down further - where the 3400 won - on 5 occasions it was less than 1% - the other two were 2.5 and 3.4%, for the 3500 it won on 3 occasions by less than 1% and 5 occasions ranging from 2.2% to 4.7% (ignoring the bandwidth benchmark).

Upon reflection of this it would seem that the comparison of 3400 to 3500 (3% difference between ratings) is reasonable and certainly does not indicate it is lacklustre though perhaps having them as equal ratings would be fairer. Whether the pricing turns out to be fair is another matter entirely!

Just on a side note I am always suspicious of websites who do reviews but dont show the stepping information of the cpu they are supposed to have - especially as I would have thought there must be some kind of NDA on these 939's?

I would like to see more benchmarks from other sites (who are probably under NDA right now) but even looking at these figures it will not detract me from buying a 939.

 

[Silent Buddha]

I think we are forgetting something. Like how the Socket 754 Newcastles oc much better than the Socket 754 Clawhammers, maybe the Socket 939 Newcastles would oc so much better that it would be worth it later on (end of summer anybody?).

 

[Sentential]

I think we are forgetting something. Like how the Socket 754 Newcastles oc much better than the Socket 754 Clawhammers, maybe the Socket 939 Newcastles would oc so much better that it would be worth it later on (end of summer anybody?).

Dont count out Conroe either. Once Intel gets their act together I will make up my mind

 

[OC Detective]

Conroe? You will have a long wait then according to this site! (Not up to speed on Intel stuff to be honest)
http://endian.net/details.asp?tag=Conroe

 

[Silent Buddha]

Dont count out Conroe either. Once Intel gets their act together I will make up my mind

Ahaha, Conroe doesn't sound badass like Clawhammer. It'll be a long time before Intel gets their act together...they need a lot of time to work on a dual-core based on Pentium M after they ditched Tejas.

 

[OC Detective]

I thought AMD just released a few 1.4V Mobile A64 754 CPU model 2800+, 3000+, 3200+ with 1 MB L2, which should be based on ClawHammer core.

Also there are the 3000+, 3200+, 3400+ Mobile DTR models with 1 MB L2 (ClawHammer).

Are you implying they will be gone soon?
Are they official findings?

No official findings but certainly in the desktop range it makes no sense to AMD to continue the 1MB L2 clawhammer range. Firstly for AMD the intention is to move 64 bit users to the 939 platform (which is likely to be 512KB L2 and possibly 256KB) therefore keeping such a product might detract new buyers (as is evident by the number of people we see on such forums as this who are unwilling to go down the 939 route).
Also AMD naturally would like to keep the FX as its premium product, position and price and as such the only product with 1MB L2 cache (as well as being fully unlocked).
Plus to make both Clawhammers and Newcastles is extending the sku range when from an operations viewpoint rationalisation is more sensible.
The other thing I would point out is there is only one cpuid value assigned to the Clawhammer 754 and this is the existing value - whereas the Newcastle has two values assigned at 754 (FC0h to FE0h) for both desktop and mobile suggesting some form of evolution and that the Newcastle will eventually displace the Clawhammer.
I also think the CH7-CG revision may end up being a 256KB L2 cache variant but time will tell.

 

[SunTzu69]

So it pretty much seems like s939 is just slightly better than s754 making marginal gains which should just about be expected normally. The only considerable advantage of going 939 is really upgradeability into the future. A 939 mobo has a much better chance at outlasting a s754 mobo.



No offense man, but this post reminds me of posts made by members who ended up being banned from this forum. Gautum contributes a lot of information and he's helped me and others find a lot out about s754 and s939... Regardless of that however, your post could be interpreted as a personal attack and that is not encouraged or allowed at this forum, in any form.

I encourage everyone to keep this in mind, and be aware that comments like these DO NOT go unnoticed - I appreciate everyone keeping this thread on topic.

I second the part about Gautum. I really appreciate his posts.

 

[ecky]

IMO, the 10~20 percent increase in performance for the S939 does not justify its cost. Coz for the S939, 1) The CPU cost more, 2) The mboard might cost a bit more, 3) You need 2 rams instead of 1 and you only get a bit of performance increase which I think you could easily gain it by Ocing the S754.

And the current S939 "is not really that future proof either" cos other than the socket change, everything else remains the same, for e.g. no PCI-E or DDR2 (I know they are not suppose to come out now) but what I mean that there maybe a 2nd generation S939 which have DDR2 support and PCI-E.

So overall, I think it is better to go S754 now and upgrade a year or so later when S939 has support for PCI-E and DDR2

 

[kulki]

IMO, the 10~20 percent increase in performance for the S939 does not justify its cost. Coz for the S939, 1) The CPU cost more, 2) The mboard might cost a bit more, 3) You need 2 rams instead of 1 and you only get a bit of performance increase which I think you could easily gain it by Ocing the S754.

And the current S939 "is not really that future proof either" cos other than the socket change, everything else remains the same, for e.g. no PCI-E or DDR2 (I know they are not suppose to come out now) but what I mean that there maybe a 2nd generation S939 which have DDR2 support and PCI-E.

So overall, I think it is better to go S754 now and upgrade a year or so later when S939 has support for PCI-E and DDR2

I second that opinion.