AMD choice's

srdb20

HI, just a couple of questions. Hoping some one out there can help?

Does anyone know when AMD are bringing out there new socket to support ddr2 (Ive heard they might be using the 940 socket), and should i wait till its released or go for an AMD 64 3500 - 4000? Im looking for any advice as i want to build a fairly top end machine. Any other specs you think would helpful for my machine dont hesitate to post 'em in.

NIce 1!!!!!!

vishal

look here http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2476

if you want ddr2 now you have to get an intel

srdb20

thanks man,

Col_Loki

It will be 2006 (prob mid) before AMD are going DDR2, and as for the Socket940 thing i dont see that happening. The Socket940's extra pin (over 939) is to do with registered memory for the servers........ They will most lightly change the socket/stick with 939.

astrofool

The extra pin is to make sure that the right cpu goes into the right socket, nothing more, nothing less. They could for example have brought out socket 941 for the non regged memory socket if they had wanted to.

Socket M2 is the one out next year for ddr2 support, its a different shape to make sure that non-ddr2 chips can't go into it, its also gonna be 939/940 pins.

There is also socket 1207 coming out for servers, and it probably will have a use for those extra 400 pins (more HT channels, FBDimm support, dual memory controllers, or something).

A few of the pins on modern cpu's don't do anything in particular, but are there for any future expansion, and/or because its a nice round number to make a socket with that many pins.

srdb20

i think ill go for the amd 4000,

any body got or used the x2 dual core?

K.O.Kiki

Why not go for the X2 3800+?
I'm sure the multi-tasking/dual-threading benefits will be worth it over the 4000, plus you can OC the cores to quite high levels (I've heard of 2.4-2.68GHz).
Have a look at the review here; I'd like to get one myself, but can't afford it ATM -_-

Khannie

K.O.Kiki wrote:

I'm sure the multi-tasking/dual-threading benefits will be worth it over the 4000

It depends heavily on what you use your machine for.

K.O.Kiki

Khannie wrote:

It depends heavily on what you use your machine for.

I would think that, if you're going to be using your PC for nothing but gaming, then single-processor is good.
For most mortals (like myself) though, dual-core would be the best bet for the future.

srdb20

probably the best bet for the future but, but at the moment games wont take advantage of the dual cores, so id be paying for 2 cores and only using one... its down to common sense v's logic!!!

THIS COULD GO ON FOR A WHILE!!!

astrofool

Would you notice the difference between 100 and 105 fps? if not you won't be taking advantage of the faster cpu....

Ciaran500

astrofool wrote:

Would you notice the difference between 100 and 105 fps? if not you won't be taking advantage of the faster cpu....

No, but I would notice the difference between 20 and 25+fps.

astrofool

well of course you would, the point being that the poster seems to be talking about dual core compared to single core for games, when even a relatively slow cpu (nowadays), such as a 3000+ gets very good performance, and the poster seems to be implying that the dual cores won't get good performance in games.