939 AMD64...price and when

[Tuffgong4]

has anyone heard when the 939 AMD 64 is going to come out and what it will cost compared to todays AMD 64s...also is the 939 dual channel mem support going to do that much compared to earlier amd 64s

 

[Sazar]

sckt 939 is basically sckt 940 but w/o the required use of registered memory... therefore performance will be higher than current socket 940 processors.. and yes it will be dual channel...

ergo I expect the price to be the same or higher than current athlon64 processors of similar numbering schemes... the FX Processors will be 1mb l2 cache and the non FX might be 512kb l2 cache...

 

[Tuffgong4]

one more question...what is the performance jump from the 754 compared to the 939?

 

[Sazar]

in general there is no real difference...

however in highly memory intensive situations you have a net increase in memory bandwidth available therefore you should see some improvements there...

only major difference is dual channel... afaik...

but like I said you should not see that difference in many places...

 

[Tuffgong4]

awesome...I don't want to break the bank on my upgrade and I think I will do it soon rather than wait...I'm still running a 1.6 p4 and I still don't have problem doing anything...thanks sazar

 

[gonaads]

From what I have read the 939 will be geared more as a gamer's AMD 64 not as robust as a server type 940 but maybe faster and cheaper for a gamer (AMD doesn't really want to say it's a gamer type Processor). Possibliities are that maybe it will be a tiny bit cheaper and then depending on how it goes, it may go down in price. AMD does not want to under cut their 940's so they opted for the 939. Plain old DDR memory that everyone and his/her brother already own, maybe a little faster maybe a little cheaper.

You may want to read this here (overclockers.com)

Kinda interesting

 

[Sazar]

that article is based on FUD for a large part incorporated with some new FUD they made themselves... unfortunately I do not have the power/time/energy to go smack people around for retarded editorials based on loose innuendo and basic understanding of the subject matter...

the athlon64 lineup was never designed to support ddr 400... that came about later... why do you think there have been so many problems and delays? its all related to on-die memory controller...

JEDEC specs acknowledge ddr400 as official standard... @ the time of the athlon64 inception afaik it was ddr333... so obviously a rework was called into action...

the first processor released by amd was the opteron... this was done deliberately and for good reason... following this were the laptop and desktop processors...

while sckt 939 should have been handled more aggresively by AMD to say they did not recognise the potential market is rather short-sighted... AMD's very own site itself states in plain english that the desktop market is not AMD's no. 1 priority..

after their period of restructuring AMD has focussed its sites on varied markets and while desktops are important.. servers and the mobile market are more so and AMD has other interests such as flash memory and the like...

given the INQ's rather 'colorful' articles I would take with a massive grain of salt any editorial based off of their sites info... heck just as an example we currently have around 5-6 different nv40's that have a 'proven' 8x2/16x0/16x1/32x0 and so on and so forth configuration... naturally one of them will be right but that does not necessarily give any credence to the speculative journalism and the conclusions many of the articles come to... ergo the credibility of editorials based off the same are a little.. well... untrustworthy comes to mind...