Socket 940 vs. 939

Supplied by AMD

AMD have been launching assault after assault intent on battering the competition into 64-bit submission. The introduction of the 939-pin processor has been eagerly anticipated by some and left others with questions. Many have gotten caught up in the drag strip of benchmarks and overlooked the new features this latest introduction brings. Socket 939 does bring support for unbuffered memory but does this mean the death of Socket 940? Cool’n’Quiet has received a cool reception but it’s a gem waiting to be polished. Socket 940 versus Socket 939. Which is the winning combination for you?

Socket 940 FX-53 and Socket 939 Athlon 64 3800+ look identical and for the most part they are. There is a cost of manufacturing advantage for motherboard makers to move to Socket 939 which uses a 4 layer PCB motherboard instead of the more expensive 6 layer motherboards for Socket 940. This was not the driving influence for AMD to pursue Socket 939. AMD needed the next generation socket to carry the processor through another growth curve.

Socket 939 is obviously one less pin than Socket 940. It isn’t possible to snip one pin off a Socket 940 processor and have it function in a Socket 939 motherboard. Think of Socket 939 and Socket 940 processors as first cousins that can’t live in the same house. For now Socket 939 will not be able to function in multi-processor setups.

Side by side

It can be confusing as to which is “the best”. The 940-pin FX53 and the 939-pin FX-53 and 3800+ and the 754-pin 3700+ and 3400+ all run at 2.4 GHz. The notable difference are:

• Socket 940 has an effective data rate up to 12.8 GB/s, Socket 939 is up to 14.4 GB/s and Socket 754 is up to 9.6 GB/s.
• Socket 940 and 939 HyperTransport specification are up to 2 GHz while Socket 754 is up to 1600 MHz.
• Socket 940 and 939 both have 128-bit wide dual channel integrated memory controllers while Socket 754 is only single channel and 64-bits wide.
• Only the Socket 940/939 FX-53 and Socket 754 3700+ have 1 MB of L2 cache.
• Only the Socket 940 processors require Registered RAM.

It’s pretty much six of one half dozen of the other isn’t it? Between the FX-53 Socket 939/940 processors there are only two differences. The first is that Socket 940 requires Registered memory and Socket 939 doesn’t. The second is that the Socket 940 FX-53 has less effective data bandwidth. It comes in at up to 12.8 GB/s versus up to 14.4 GB/s with the Socket 939 FX-53. The only obvious difference between the Socket 939 FX-53 and the 3800+ is 512 KB of L2 cache.

It appears the AMD cooks are varying their recipes by a smidgen of this and a dash of that. The “best” is what suits your needs…and budget.

Why Registered RAM?

Servers and mission critical systems is the explanation given most as to why to use Registered RAM.

Why?

Often this explanation is used as a “because I said so” statement and left at that. It has always been quoted but never really explained. Enthusiasts rejoice at the introduction of Socket 939 because the processor does not require Registered RAM as did its Socket 940 predecessor. Registered RAM is more of a specialty item compared to unbuffered “normal” RAM and as such it is more expensive and the choices fewer. First assumption by anyone would be to put Socket 940 on the road to obsolescence with the introduction of the Socket 939 processor.

Let’s begin with the memory itself. Registered refers to the registers onboard the RAM which hold data for one clock cycle before moving the data to the motherboard. This increases the reliability of the data. The “hold” for one clock cycle explains why Registered RAM is slower than unbuffered memory. “Slower” is a relative term like one dragster is “slower” than the other. Both move pretty fast.

Registered RAM can also be ECC Registered RAM. The “ECC” stands for “Error Checking and Correction”. Others use “Error-Correcting Code.” In both cases it’s the same built-in function of the RAM to automatically correct errors in data as it passes in and out of the RAM. These errors are known as “soft errors” or SER.

The reason for soft errors is incredulous but true. At the chip level a soft error occurs when the radioactive atoms in the chip’s material decay and release alpha particles into the chip. Those particles can “hit” a memory cell in the chip and force a change. As an example that memory cell may, at that time, be holding a binary code value of 1 and the particle collision may change it to a 0. Think of it like a billiards table where the cue ball strikes another ball knocking it out of position.

Chip level errors are extremely rare and there’s no worry of these particles bouncing wildly about ripping tiny holes in everything including the RAM, the motherboard, your legs, etc. These collisions are on the atomic scale and it’s more the physics of electrical interaction than anything else. RAM technology has increased so much making chip level errors extremely rare.

System level soft errors occur because of noise interference. This noise isn’t a stereo that’s too loud but “noise” of unwanted radiation from other components. Think of it like trying to tune in a radio station. The clear signal is what is desired but the static is the unwanted noise. That noise interferes with the ability to hear the song clearly. The song “corrupts” and words may be misheard or not heard at all. In the case of memory the data passing to and from the ram is the song and the noise “corrupts” the data. System level soft errors typically occur as the data is traveling to and from the RAM on the data bus but not within the RAM chips themselves.

How often chip level or system level soft errors occur is most difficult to pin down. These soft errors occur randomly and this randomness if further compounded by the variable of other system components and environment situations. The PSU may not have enough shielding. Someone may have parked a speaker next to the PC case. The cat may have rubbed up against the PC and discharged static electricity. Think on the microscopic level too. Did that trace on the motherboard leak a weak electrical signal and interfere with the trace next to it?

The variables never end and it’s safe to say that the odds are largely against soft errors but they do happen.

Stand alone systems typically use unbuffered memory. That is to say it’s not ECC Registered memory. On average the home PC isn’t being taxed as much compared to a server nor does it handle as much data over an extended period of time. A server is designed to “serve” many users; tens, hundreds or thousands at a time. This load means a tremendous amount of data is being passed about and, at times, during a 24/7 period. The odds of a soft error occurring are much higher. ECC Registered RAM will correct these errors thus everybody gets what they came for instead of glitches, crashes or BSODs.

Remember that any computer that is accessed by one or more users can be thought of as a “server.” This includes that PC that stores MP3s that are played back through the home network or a LAN party game server and so on right up to those corporate servers which are eternally blamed for the email not working.

A workstation is also another PC that may benefit from ECC Registered RAM. 3D programs such as Autocad, 3D Studio Max and Softimage manipulate a tremendous amount of data. If that data corrupts then frequent crashes result in downtime and that means lost time and money. 3D programs and even some 2D programs such as Adobe After Effects can render or “put together” a finished project taking a long period of time. This period may be over an hour or a day but the longer the duration increases the odds of an error. The last thing any graphic artists wants to see is a glitch half way through an 8 hour render. ECC Registered RAM is better suited to avoid those occurrences.

It is true that Registered RAM is slower than unbuffered memory. The reason is because Registered RAM modules have buffers on the address and control lines. These buffers along with the clock driver chip act like signal boosters. In layman’s terms data has a very weak electrical signal. If it had a stronger electrical signal then it could result in leakage and then it’s back to the soft error problem. That data has to reach a lot of places in a PC with a lot of memory such as a server which may have greater than 4 GB of RAM installed. The electrical “oomph” of the data isn’t enough to travel to all the places in the ram module without degridation…aka errors. The buffers give those signals a helping hand. The buffer and clock driver operation requires more time to “do its thing.” The time needed can be measured in nanoseconds and it would be difficult for the average user to tell the difference in the “feel” and “speed” of the PC given two matching setups; the only difference being one used unbuffered memory and the other used ECC Registered. Benchmarks would show a difference but, as will be seen later in this article, that difference is very small.

That’s an extremely simplified view but it is adequate for this level of explanation. This is a reason why motherboards with 2 and 3 DIMMS are common. Less DIMMS do cut down on the overall cost of manufacturing the board but a move to higher memory capability may cross that threshold between requiring Registered memory instead of unbuffered.

That threshold is changing as memory technology and dependability increases. Unbuffered memory modules at the 512 and 1 GB level are common which means that a system with a whopping 2 GB of unbuffered memory is easily attainable. Push to the 3, 4 or 8 GB level and it’s safer to use ECC Registered memory. It used to be less a year or two ago and it will be more in years to come. Technology marches on.

As a final point of conjecture it’s important to know that Registered modules can be buffered and unbuffered. The difference is the inclusion of buffers hence the term. ECC also is an additional feature. For the most part the most common types of memory are ECC Registered Buffered memory, ECC unbuffered and “normal” unbuffered memory (non-parity).

So why use Registered RAM?

Consider using Registered RAM if the goal is to have a PC:

• That has a large amount of memory. Start considering it at the 3 GB level.
• That serves another regardless of the amount of users.
• That supports 2D or 3D data intensive programs especially if those programs can take a long period of time to complete a task.
• That is used wherever data integrity is of critical importance to the end user.

So now it’s clearer to see that a Socket 939 FX-53 processor would make for a formidable gaming system but a Socket 940 FX-53 would make for a very powerful single processor workstation. Each has their useful niche and, when all things are considered. The choice must be made between saving on purchase of a system that uses unbuffered memory to only spend that savings in downtime and re-done projects. The variable of Opteron has not been introduced at this time.

Cool’n’Quiet

Cool’n’Quiet is now a feature on AMD’s Athlon 64 processors excluding the FX and Opteron lines. Opteron models have been introduced with new low power models but that’s another topic altogether.

Cool’n’Quiet is a function of the processor, when combined with a motherboard that supports it, to automatically adjust its own speed and power consumption based on load. Cool’n’Quiet is an overlooked feature of recent AMD processors and, while still in its early adoption and not without the occasional anomaly, has potential.

Since January of 2000 Intel has had its own version called SpeedStep which was introduced primarily for their notebook processors. SpeedStep kicked in when the notebook was running on battery. The processor adjusted its bus ratio to run the processor at a lower frequency (lesser speed) to conserve batter power thus extending battery usage duration. SpeedStep can be set to:

• Manual – always run at the highest performance state
• Constant – always run at the lowest performance state
• Adaptive – performance state chosen according to CPU demand
• Degrade – starts at the lowest performance state then uses additional linear performance reduction as battery discharges

Intel P4 desktop processors have a TCC or Thermal Control Circuit “that will attempt to reduce processor temperature by rapidly
reducing power consumption when the on-die temperature sensor indicates that it has
exceeded the maximum operating point.” Basically the P4 runs flat out until it overheats.

AMD’s Cool’n’Quiet, unlike Intel’s similar offering, isn’t just for notebooks and here’s what it does for desktops.

• Cool’n’Quiet cuts processor speed when the processor is at idle.
• Cool’n’Quiet cuts processor voltage when the processor is at idle.
• Cool’n’Quiet instantaneously ramps up processor speed and voltage in accordance to CPU load.

Let’s talk about the benefits. The first is heat output. A processor that runs at lower voltage outputs less heat. Less heat means that a thermistor controlled CPU cooling fan can reduce speed and thus noise level. The second is power usage. A processor that runs at a lower voltage consumes less power and this power consumption saving adds up on the monthly bill for a business; small, medium or large. Basically it’s the reverse of the P4 Thermal Control Circuit; it runs flat out when it needs to otherwise it backs off to reduce power usage and heat output.

Cool’n’Quiet Real world numbers

Kilowatt usage measured by a P3 International Kill-a-Watt device. (0.2% accuracy). Comparative performance tests featured UT2003 Flyby benchmarks. Aquamark benchmark was executed at 640×480, 800×600, 1024×768, 1280×1024 and 1600×1200 screen resolutions at four levels of graphic settings: AA off & details low, AA off and details high, 16x AA & details low and 16x AA & details high. Sisoft Sandra file system benchmark was run 5 consecutive times on an 80 GB Western Digital hard drive with 10 partitions. (Floppy and external drive tests disabled.) The remaining time after programs completed was inactive and results were recorded 6.5 hours from the beginning of the tests.

My own hydro company charges $0.05770 per kilowatt hour. The test PC without Cool’n’Quiet enabled used 1.05 kWh. Consider that it is powered on for an average of 4 hours per day over a one month (30 day) period. That comes to an extrapolated cost of $7.27 that I pay to operate that PC. (An amazing figure as it’s half the overall usage charge.) To see average kilowatt per hour usage of 4 different power supply configurations without Cool’n’Quiet look to our 4 PSU roundup.

The same battery of tests with Cool’n’Quiet enabled yielded a 0.76 kWh usage. The extrapolated cost over the same time period is $5.26.

So what? A difference of $2.01. For an example business situatio multiply that monthly saving per computer times 100 computers over a year’s usage and the savings work out to be $2412.

It adds up.

In the following examples the test system idled for a period of 15 minutes before executing 25 repetitions of Sisoft Sandra CPU Burn-in (Arithmetic/Multimedia benchmarks). After another 5 minute idle period Unreal Tournament 2003 Citadel, Antalus and Asbestos flyby benchmarks were executed.

Cool’n’Quiet reduces processor temperature with the first rise indicating the 25 repetitions of Sisoft Sandra CPU Burn-in and the second spike indicating the flyby benchmarks of Unreal Tournament 2003.

The ramp in voltage between idle and load is very significant with Cool’n’Quiet enabled.

Another way to look at the processor temperatures is between idle and load with Cool’n’Quiet enabled and disabled. Most noticeably is the near 10 degree drop in idle temperatures with Cool’n’Quiet enabled. It even affected load temperatures.

With a drop in processor temperature comes a drop in fan speed (graphed) and therefore fan speed noise.

Processor usage is, for all intents and purposes, identical whether Cool’n’Quiet is enabled or disabled. It’s proof that when the processor is under load it is functioning at peak efficiency.

Cool’n’Quiet is simple. When it’s not needed, such as during tasks like email or word processing, the processor backs off. When it is needed, such as during multimedia design or gaming, the processor speed and power are right there. Cool’n’Quiet is also dynamic, adjusting in a curve rather than a one level or the other setting. Mind you the curve is rather steep as maximum core speed, voltage and multipliers are usually reached when the processor approaches 50% usage. Cool’n’Quiet maintains the lowest setting when CPU usage is below 10%. Quick jumps are seen between 30-50% CPU usage.

Impact on performance

Nil. Zilch. Nadda. Nope. No siree Bob. Don’t believe me? Unreal Tournament 2003 flyby benchmarks showed little to no change with Cool’n’Quiet enabled or disabled.

Aquamark tests showed the same negligible differences

EVP: Enhanced Virus Protection

AMD marketing has their teeth into another route to our pocketbooks with an upcoming feature available with any AMD64 processor. Enhanced Virus Protection (EVP) is a hardware feature that sets aside an area of system ram to contain certain types of virus’ and malicious executables. Make no mistake; this feature is not designed to replace Antivirus software but it is available to enhance protection within the computer.

EVP works by the processor setting aside a portion of system memory. How much memory is unknown but it will be a very small amount. That portion of memory becomes a containment room of sorts. A virus or malicious executable that enters the PC through an open port is automatically sent to that portion of memory and contained. Anything within that memory area cannot be executed. Essentially the bad guys get their fuse snipped on the bomb. The contained virus is then dealt with by the virus protection software.

EVP must work in conjunction with software written for EVP. Windows SP2 will have EVP features for enhanced virus protection and it remains to be seen if other vendors such as Symantec explore the EVP route. If it catches on and can make money then there’ll be no doubt they will. EVP DOES NOT protect a user from every virus nor is it to be thought of as virus protection hardware. It will not protect a user who accidentally opens up that “RIWANDA BANK NOTIFICATION OF 1 MILLION DOLLAR DEPOSIT” email that contains a virus. Nor will it protect you from sticking your mouse where it shouldn’t be.

EVP is said to enhance virus protection and not replace it. If effective then EVP could show saving in both lost manpower time and money.

Benchmarks.

The test systems.

• AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Processor (32-bit mode)
• ASUS 8KV motherboard
• ATI 9800 PRO 256 MB Video Card Catalyst 4.2 drivers (Application preference ticked for Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering in both Direct 3D and OpenGL, VSYNC disabled BIOS AGP aperture set to 256)
• 2 x 512 MB Corsair PC3200LL TwinX DDR RAM in DIMM 1 and 3
• LG 8x DVD+/-RW.
• 80 GB Seagate Hard Drive
• Samsung 950p 19″ Monitors
• USB Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• Retail HSF
• AMK SX1000 modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
• Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
• Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 updated DX90.b installed.

• AMD FX-53 Processor
  (32-bit mode)
• Gigabyte
  8NNXP-940 motherboard
• ASUS SK8N motherboard
• ATI 9800 PRO 256 MB Video
  Card Catalyst 4.2 drivers (Application preference ticked for Anti-Aliasing
  and Anisotropic Filtering in both Direct 3D and OpenGL, VSYNC disabled BIOS
  AGP aperture set to 256)
• 2 x 512 MB Crucial
  PC3200 ECC REG DDR RAM in DIMM 1 and 3
• Sony 52x CD
• 80 GB Seagate Hard Drive
• Samsung 950p 19″ Monitors
• USB Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• Retail boxed heatsink
• AMK SX1000
  modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
• Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
• Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 updated DX90.b installed.

• Intel P4 3 GHz processor (HT enabled)
• ABIT
  IC7-Max3 motherboard
• ATI 9800 PRO 256 MB Video
  Card Catalyst 4.2 drivers (Application preference ticked for Anti-Aliasing
  and Anisotropic Filtering in both Direct 3D and OpenGL, VSYNC disabled BIOS
  AGP aperture set to 256)
• 2 x 256 MB Corsair PC3200 DDR RAM in DIMM 1 and 3
• LG 52x CD/RW
• 80 GB Seagate SATA Hard Drive
• Samsung 950p 19″ Monitors
• USB Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• Retail HSF packaged with processor
• AMK SX1000
  modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
• Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
• Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 updated DX90.b installed.

• AMD 3200+ 400 FSB
  Processor
• Gigabyte
  7NNXP motherboard
• ATI 9800 PRO 256 MB Video
  Card Catalyst 4.2 drivers (Application preference ticked for Anti-Aliasing
  and Anisotropic Filtering in both Direct 3D and OpenGL, VSYNC disabled BIOS
  AGP aperture set to 256)
• 2 x 256 MB Corsair PC3200 DDR RAM in DIMM 1 and 3
• Sony 52x CD
• 60 GB Maxtor ATA133 Hard Drive
• Samsung 950p 19″ Monitors
• USB Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• Globalwin CAK4-76T HSF
• AMK SX1000
  modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
• Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
• Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 updated DX90.b installed.

Programs used

• 
  Sisoft Sandra 2004
• MadOnion
  3DMark 2001 SE
• MadOnion
  3DMark 2003
• Quake
  III Arena
• GL
  Excess
• SpecviewPerf 7.1
• Serious Sam SE
• Splinter Cell (Chinese Embassy timedemo)
• Unreal Tournament 2003 flyby benchmarks
• Aquamark3
• Jurassic Park Operation Genesis (Exercise cut scene/FRAPS)
• Call of Duty demo (40,000 frames played/FRAPS)
• X2
  Demo
• Wolfenstein Enemy Territory (Railgun demo)
• Fraps
• Adobe After Effects 5.5
• Softimage 2.0.1

All tests were run at default video card settings with VSYNC disabled. Anti-Aliasing
and Anisotropic Filtering was left ticked for application preference. AGP aperture
was set to 256 MB. Windows visual effects
was set for ADJUST FOR BEST PERFORMANCE.

Individual performance will vary with any particular or specific timings or
tweaks enabled by you. A 1024 MB page file was moved to D: partition. Temporary
Internet files moved to J: partition at end of drive. OS installed to C: and
programs installed to E:. All programs were benchmarked with initial monitor
settings at 1024×768@75Hz. Your own mileage may very.

Please note that in the following benchmark graphs the ASUS test motherboard for the Athlon 64 3800+ is incorrectly identified as the SK8V. The correct model is 8KV.

3DMark 2003

3D Mark 2003 was originally designed to measure performance specifically in
shader-heavy titles.

Aquamark3

Aquamark3 is a newer benchmark from Massive Development. For the most part
it is a DirectX 8.1 benchmark though it is run with DirectX 90b installed. Four
measurement sets were used. The first has high and low detail with Anti Aliasing
and Anisotropic filtering turned off. The second has high and low detail with
Anti-Aliasing (6x) and Anisotropic filtering (16x) set at max.

GL Excess

GL Excess is an OPENGL benchmark that is optimized for DX8.1.

Quake III high quality

Quake III continues to hang around. This benchmark is one that
most can’t just let go of and it retains grandfather rights in the community.
Many of today’s games are based upon the Quake engine. It wasn’t too long ago that we thought topping 100
FPS was fast. Now we sit at over 300 FPS with the screen set to a high resolution
and detail.

Serious Sam

UT2003 Flyby

UT2004 Benchmark

Wolfenstein Enemy Territory: Railgun timedemo

Wolfenstein Enemy Territory uses an improved version of the heavily
modified Quake III engine from Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The Railgun time
demo results were recorded.

X2 Rolling Demo

X2 – The Threat is a teaser with a benchmark option for Egosoft’s
upcoming release. It does not use pixel shaders.

Call of Duty Demo

Call of Duty is a new game thus using the latest in optimizations.
FRAPS was used to record the average number of frames per second over a minimum
of 100,000 played frames. Call of Duty also finds its roots in the Quake III
engine.

SplinterCell (Chinese Embassy Timedemo)

Specviewperf 7.1

SpecviewPerf measures the 3D rendering performance of systems
running under OPENGL.

The following two tests are targeted mainly towards CPU performance and will
show if any “flaws” are in board design affecting the ability of the
CPU to crunch through the data. While in render mode the two test programs virtually
bypass ram and GPU.

Adobe After Effects 5.5

Adobe After Effects is a tool to produce motion
graphics and visual effects for film, video, multimedia and the web. It is primarily
a 2D application using imported graphics or digital footage or self generated
effects. A project was created that was a combination of many video footage
files, resizing and rasterizing effects, text animations and multiple layer
effects. This “average” combination was felt to best demonstrate advantages
and/or disadvantages that a real world user may experience rather than isolating
and benchmarking a particular effect.

There is no official benchmark for After Effects
but tasks can be timed to show specific results. Rendering, or the task of building
and compiling frames, is primarily CPU intensive and After Effects generally bypasses
the video card to rely solely upon the processor for speed. The time taken
to render 900 frames shows how fast the processor is working on the
given task.

The Socket 940 FX-53 does show off its 2D workstation advantages in the After Effects benchmark.

Softimage XSI can simply bring
any computer to its knees. It’s an incredibly powerful 3D animation program
that has the ability to become so complex that single processor systems have
been known to “think” for days when rendering an animation. A faster and more powerful video
card will translate to a smoother interface where complex scenes are manipulated
in real time. Users can manipulate objects in a
choice of views from wire frame mode to simulated real-time shading mode. A user must render a frame to disk, which
bypasses the GPU, in
order to look at a finished product. A faster processor will result in a faster render.

Benchmark Conclusions

The Athlon 64 3800+ Socket 939 dances well with the Socket 940 FX-53 and both take a turn at the pole position. Does the larger cache provide a bigger performance benefit or is it the fatter data pipe? It’s difficult to say and it depends on the application. Unfortunately software boxes don’t come with labels that say “Optimized for a large processor cache” or “Warning! Memory bandwidth intensive!”

Conclusions

Socket 940 FX-53 came onto the market and embarrassed the competition. The Socket 939 Athlon 64 3800+ processor takes turns with the FX-53 940-pin at the pole position. Though we did not test the FX-53 for 939-pin, it has been documented that AMD continues to stomp heavily around the benchmark world. Anyone who says Intel wears the crown is sadly mistaken.

Socket 940 owners should not lust for Socket 939 but be cautious if considering Socket 940 for single processor as having an upgrade path. Currently Socket 940 FX-53 owners have one of the top performing processors on the market and all the stability of ECC Registered memory. Moving from lower end Athlon XP processors to Socket 939 is akin to getting out of a race car and into a rocket ship. It isn’t fair to call current processors “slow” anymore. There’s just fast and faster.

But it’s not all about the benchmarks. Cool’n’Quiet takes me back to the WPCRESET tweaks of the KT7A-Raid days. A tweak back then enabled the CPU_HALT command and thus a much cooler processor. Cool’n’Quiet, once firmly established, will be as good an idea as sliced bread. Less heat, lower power consumption and money saved appeals to anyone.

AMD have introduced and are introducing many processor choices in the marketplace from value to performance. The question is why? The majority of consumers purchase a complete system and not just a processor. Consumers also want the best bang for their buck and it’s important to put choices within reach. It’s strategy to place many processor choices in the market that are close together in price and specifications. The next level is “just a few dollar more” or “why not choose this processor? It’s just about the same AND its lower price means you can afford more RAM.”

Sound familiar?

The close price point between Socket 939 Athlon 64 3800+ and Socket 754 Athlon 64 3700+ is most likely the proverbial carrot for consumers to transition to Socket 939 allowing AMD to nudge Socket 754 towards the value spectrum.

AMD is doing processor housekeeping to set itself up for the next few years. Socket 939 has the most potential for a long life span in the mid-level to performance area. It’s the odds on favorite which will make vendors and manufacturers happier because they won’t have to stock as large a variety of parts. It may also provide a bit of upgrade insurance to consumers. Socket 754 will most likely be used to support value based processors and also hang around a bit longer due to its popularity. Socket 940 for the enthusiast could be the first to fall by the wayside. This only puts more emphasis on Opteron. Processors and Registered RAM have their place but will the interest be enough to warrant further development for for single processor Socket 940? Will history show it as the sacrificial olive branch between enthusiast/workstation user and Opteron? Don’t forget that waiting to hear its quiet epitaph is Socket A which has carried AMD through Spitfire, Morgan, Thunderbird, Thoroughbred, Barton, Thorton, Appaloosa, Applebred, and Palomino. I’m sure it will get a proud place of honor in the AMD retirement showcase soon enough.

Our thanks to AMD for
their support of this and many other sites.