Upgrading a S939

[Jschmuck2]

My system is in my sig below. I'm actually going to be upgrading to 2gb of ram this week (thanks AT FS/FT) but apart from that, is it worth going with a new proc/gfx card at this point? Or should I wait until about midway through the year to build a new box?

 

[Lonyo]

Well you could get a new GFX card without any worries, since PCIe will continue to be used for a fair while
As for the CPU, I'm in the same boat (single core 939), and I'm not sure whether to go to dual core 939 and hold off a complete upgrade, or get a complete upgrade (CPU/mobo/RAM) at some other point.

 

[catalysts17az]

Hey bud the only change that i would do at this point is change out your Chip. I highly recommend a Denmark 175 (2.2 Ghz, Dual Core Opteron Socket 939). you can still OC that baby at least too about 2.6. Secondly get yourself another gig. your 7800GTX is still a damn good card. well thats my .02 cents. If you do upgrade to dual core use your remaining chip in a biostar TForce 6100 socket 939 board, if you can still find it, damn good board that you can use as a spare.
Good Luck

 

[Munky]

If you want better performance in games, then get a new video card. Your cpu is still good for gaming. Don't get a dual core s939 cpu unless you do a lot of work that would really benefit from multiple cores; otherwise wait until you build a new rig with a newer cpu.

 

[Nickel020]

That CPU is still good for gaming, very few games actually support dual core CPUs, so a 2.9GHz single core will be noticeably faster than a 2.6GHz dual core CPU. You might upgrade the video card, but do you actually need more performance now? I'd rather wait for ATI's R600 if you can wait...

 

[WT]

Anybody else tired of hearing about dual core ?? Just because I have an extra core doesn't mean I am ever taking advantage of it. I'd much prefer to be running at 4.5ghz+ rather than at 2.6 on two cores. I must be getting old, since I just don't game while burning a DVD and downloading yet another Linux distro ... all the while scanning my PC and IM'ing the gaming buds.
Stick with what you have .. I also recommend the RAM upgrade. Just see what comes along by June and go from there. Unless there is a game that demands your upgrade, then hold off.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: WT
Anybody else tired of hearing about dual core ?? Just because I have an extra core doesn't mean I am ever taking advantage of it. I'd much prefer to be running at 4.5ghz+ rather than at 2.6 on two cores. I must be getting old, since I just don't game while burning a DVD and downloading yet another Linux distro ... all the while scanning my PC and IM'ing the gaming buds.
Stick with what you have .. I also recommend the RAM upgrade. Just see what comes along by June and go from there. Unless there is a game that demands your upgrade, then hold off.

Ever look to see how many processes are running at the same time, Explorer.exe, Service.exe, screen saver , anti-virus. Check it out I bet there are 40 or so, and all can take advantage of dual core

 

[lopri]

I had a 3.0GHz Opteron 146 until recently and didn't feel it's slower than E6600 most of the time. There certainly were moments where things got stalled once every while but the overall experience was just snappy. But things changed with Vista.

So all in all, it really depends on the types of apps/games you play as well as your choice of OS. If you're planning to get Vista in near future, I highly recommend a dual-core. If you plan to stay with XP until Vista matures and your daily applications are mostly office stuff (word, excel, web-browsers and e-mails), then you'll not likely see the benefit of dual-cores. (I know I didn't) The type of games you play also comes into play. If you play graphically-heavy games (most modern FPS games) then CPUs don't matter much. If you play RTS, flight Sim, or Oblivion (can be very CPU-heavy at times) then a fast dual-core can improve the overall experience quite a lot.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: WT
Anybody else tired of hearing about dual core ?? Just because I have an extra core doesn't mean I am ever taking advantage of it. I'd much prefer to be running at 4.5ghz+ rather than at 2.6 on two cores. I must be getting old, since I just don't game while burning a DVD and downloading yet another Linux distro ... all the while scanning my PC and IM'ing the gaming buds.
Stick with what you have .. I also recommend the RAM upgrade. Just see what comes along by June and go from there. Unless there is a game that demands your upgrade, then hold off.

Ever look to see how many processes are running at the same time, Explorer.exe, Service.exe, screen saver , anti-virus. Check it out I bet there are 40 or so, and all can take advantage of dual core

And yet when I open up task manager and look at my cpu usage, it's less than 1% while I'm browsing the web and listening to mp3's. I've had a single core A64 before, and I've never felt that the system was somehow bogged down from having only a single core. The only major improvement I've seen from dual cores is in apps that can really take advantage of all cores, such as video encoding.

 

[duragezic]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: WT
Anybody else tired of hearing about dual core ?? Just because I have an extra core doesn't mean I am ever taking advantage of it. I'd much prefer to be running at 4.5ghz+ rather than at 2.6 on two cores. I must be getting old, since I just don't game while burning a DVD and downloading yet another Linux distro ... all the while scanning my PC and IM'ing the gaming buds.
Stick with what you have .. I also recommend the RAM upgrade. Just see what comes along by June and go from there. Unless there is a game that demands your upgrade, then hold off.

Ever look to see how many processes are running at the same time, Explorer.exe, Service.exe, screen saver , anti-virus. Check it out I bet there are 40 or so, and all can take advantage of dual core

If you like running with all that garbage. At my desktop with nothing else running, I have 15-17 processes. And that's mostly because the damn Logitech SetPoint has THREE processes associated with it totalling like 15 MB of memory (just to have a couple functions on my G5, bah).

Add in another 7 for IM, Firefox, explorer, Foxit, etc and during regular usage the CPU is not tied up and plenty of memory remains.

 

[s44]

Get a new GPU -- in a month.

 

[catalysts17az]

Good point Munky. I do some photoshop, audition, priemere from time to time and with dual screens i usually have more than two apps open. However, if Jschmuck2 just games and surfs the web then i too think he should stay with his chip. however, we don't know what he does. Jschmuck2, its your call.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: catalysts17az
Good point Munky. I do some photoshop, audition, priemere from time to time and with dual screens i usually have more than two apps open. However, if Jschmuck2 just games and surfs the web then i too think he should stay with his chip. however, we don't know what he does. Jschmuck2, its your call.

I wouldn't swap out the FX-55 if it's solid at that speed. The memory upgrade would definitely be good (so long as it's a 2x1GB kit). If you're a heavy multitasker (as I am) the dual-core will help but I don't think you'd ever match the single-core clock speed. For games, I think the FX-55 is better. The video card is pretty strong too.

I grabbed a 4800+ when I found it on Newegg for $225 and I think it was the last one they had. If you got a 3800, 4200 or even a 4600 I think you'd see it as a step down.

 

[ebeattie]

True... on XP and most current games there is only single thread tasks available. But there are some games out there that have a Multithread patch out, in addition to games that will be native multi thread.
And then at that point people with single cores will see that all the laughing and finger pointing at all the "suckers" who got Dual cores will have been for naught....

the multithreaded apps pwn you.

 

[yh125d]

I am also tired over the hype over dual cores. My 4000 can run all my processes, speedfan, freemeter, warpspeeder, nVidia monitor, windows media player, a couple of firefox windows, and WoW@ 50+ avg fps at only ~75% utilization, and absolutely no lag when I alt+tab out of WoW, so dual core, unless you are doing stuff like heavy video coding, is completely unnecessary.I've even run FEAR and Wow simultaneously with NO LAG. Dual core is overpriced and overhyped, better spend your money on the best single core you can find(for most people, especially gamers)

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: ebeattie
And then at that point people with single cores will see that all the laughing and finger pointing at all the "suckers" who got Dual cores will have been for naught....

No, at that point, the people with single cores will simply upgrade to a dual core chip since they finally (after how long has it been now...?) have a gaming application that actually improves performance significantly with a dual core cpu at their desired gaming settings.

As for current games with a multithreaded patch... most still see no real benefit. A simple patch is not going to be significant enough to show real improvements from having multiple cores. The entire recoding of the game engine would be necessary. See the Call of Duty 2 dual-core patch benchmarks for reference.

Like it was mentioned above, we don't know what the primary use of this machine is. If gaming is what he is mainly interested in, we would need to know what resolution he games at. At 1600x1200, with AA/AF, there is going to be virtually no difference between his FX55 and a dual-core (even a C2D). His 7800gtx is a few cycles out of date now and would be a much better upgrade than a new CPU. And, with AMD's new DX10 cards still yet to arrive, it might be best to hold off a month and see what they have to offer (or at least give nVidia a reason to lower their prices). If waiting is not an option, a GTS (640), GTX, or even the x1950xtx would be good choices.

 

[cubeless]

going to 2gb of memory made a big difference in a lot of things (reducing paging helps a lot of apps), going to a faster video card made a big difference in games (x1800xt to 8800gts)... running a64 4000 @ 3.0ghz...

i'm waiting till summer to do a new system...

 

[rileychris]

IS it really worth going to 2GB RAM, if he cannot take it wiht him to the world of C2D DDR2 ?

I say upgrade if you aren't able to play something you want. Video card first. If that won't get it done, then consider the RAM upgrade.

Is there anyway to incorporate DDR ram in the nextgen of upgrades? If so, then definitely do the RAM.

 

[Makaveli]

Most of the guys sayin the dual core cpu is not an much of an improvement have never used one. There is a difference even in just general windows use. System always feels responsive.

 

[imported_OrSin]

I would do nothing. YOu dont want o get extra DDR memory when you can't move it another system. Your chip is fast. UNless you have some reaosn its slowing you down in somthing. Really you just dont give neought information on my you are even thinking about a upgrade. I know some people upgrade just becasue but then why ask us? Just spend the money and be happy.

 

[catalysts17az]

i disagree with you OrSin, if he get another 2(512mb) sticks and it holds him over to say another Year or 2, he could possibly skip the entire generation of DDRII and upgrade at the DDRIII generation with new hardware of course and in this case it makes perfect sense to pick up another gig (as apps are sucking more memory all the time) and in the end saves perhaps a few grand because he skipped the entire upgraded generation of DDRII hardware. I say invest in your current hardware and it will reward you with enough power to keep you happy for at least two more years. but thats my .02 cents

P.S. if you need help spending money give me a call. I love to spend money especially when it others people money. LOL

 

[aka1nas]

Supreme commander is already almost requiring a dual-core chip to be playable. Single-core procs are going obselete sooner than you think.

 

[Avatar28]

I'm in sort of the same boat. Currently running an old A64 3000+ at around 2.25 GHz at the moment. 1 Gig of DDR, GeForce 6800GT. Running Vista. I need to get a new CPU for mine and I'm figuring that since Vista gives more benefit to dual core that is what I'm going to get. I've found 2 at Newegg that look to be my best bet thus far but I'm not certain which to get:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Manchester 2.4GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA4600DAA5BV - OEM

64 bit Support: Yes
HT: 2000MHz
Hyper-Transport Support: Yes
L1 Cache: 128KB+128KB
L2 Cache: 2 x 512KB
Manufacturing Tech: 90 nm
Multi-Core: Dual-Core

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Toledo 2.4GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA4600DAA5CD - OEM

64 bit Support: Yes
HT: 2000MHz
Hyper-Transport Support: Yes
L1 Cache: 128KB+128KB
L2 Cache: 2 x 512KB
Manufacturing Tech: 90 nm
Multi-Core: Dual-Core

Both are the same speed, cache, and process. Which is likely to give me a better (easier) overclock (Scythe Ninja RevB HSF)?

 

[imported_OrSin]

Supreme Commnad might need a Dual core. BF2 might be able to use the extra memory. But really unless he plays these game she dont need to upgrade his system.
The key to upgrading is only upgrade what you need when you need it. Sicen he al ready got a the ram I say dont buy anything until yiour current system is slowing you down some way. Or you see a great deal on system you think you might need soon.
Prices are are way dropping and the few time they are goiing up they reverse that trend soon enough.

 

[catalysts17az]

OrSin i agree with you about "unless you see a great deal" part. But we all know that s939 is now dead. so grab parts while you can. Avatar28 i would recommed you get the X2 4400(2 x 1mb cache) when and if it comes back into stock or go with the Denmark 165, 170, or 175. What ever you can afford. I have a 165 and 170 powering my systems. They run good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!