Socket 940 vs. 939
MediaMan
Powered by loose parts.
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?
Read it here
Read it here
0
Comments
You forgot Thorton and Appaloosa.
Personally I was quite impressed by Cool'n'Quiet.
I thought the dynamic scaling would impact performance as the CPU adjusted its speed settings slightly behind what the program expected
Cool'n'Quiet is a feature that also must be supported by the motherboard. The ASUS 8KV sample I have has it in BIOS as enable/disable. You also have to download software. The software isn't so much a GUI but a "patch" of sorts to the OS.
The Gigabyte 939 pin board I just got doesn't have the Cool'n'Quiet feature and has remained with CPU thermal throttling. It will prove to be a mistake on their part.
There are some users all over the web who have posted problems with Cool'n'Quiet but it's because the feature is in its early adoption phase. Motherboard manufacturers haven't got it quite right yet. I don't think it's a question of software conflicts but more likely BIOS buggering up by motherboard makers.
And as far as an impact on performance? Zilch. Response time was pretty instantaneous between the lesser voltage/clock speed and then needing to be "full on". I noticed absolutely no hesitation or even measured any hesitation. The CPU usage graphs show that.
Second, all of your graphs show that the processors with Cool'n'Quiet enabled run cooler even at full load than with it disabled. Does this seem to be because the processor hasn't had enough time at full voltage to catch up in heat? I'm asking because when I upgrade to a Socket 939 system, it will be folding for me 24/7 and I'm wondering whether it's useful for me to turn Cool'n'Quiet on at that time - if load temps will really be lower even with full load full time conditions, then that really IS a feat.
The most common Cool'n'Quiet glitch I've seen so far is the fact that my A64 notebook can't run at above 800 MHz on battery NO MATTER WHAT LOAD. But I'm not sure if the socket 754 notebooks use Cool'n'Quiet, or still use PowerNow...
SK8V? http://www.short-media.com/images/mm/Reviews/Hardware/processors/amd_3800/graphs/3dmark2003_1024.gif
isnt it ASUS 8KV motherboard?
Short answer: No. In order to use ECC Registered memory the motherboard must support it.
It's best to think over the the duration. Remember that Cool'n'Quiet has a pretty instantaneous reaction time in gearing up/down. Now...in that Sandra CPU burn-in example there is a pause between repititions as the burn-in cycle shuts down....switches to the next task...and repeats. The processor will "gear down" during those "pauses" allowing it to run at a cooler temperature. The ambient room was consistent during those tests. I would supsect that, on average, overall CPU temps will be 1-3 degrees cooler but that depends on the type of test and if there are any "pauses"...allow for some variables before definitely assuming that Cool'n'Quiet will consistently show lower CPU temps on the whole.
"Cool'n'Quiet" is a function in BIOS. It will be an enable/disable setting labelled as Cool'n'Quiet. You would have to do the following to use Cool'n'Quiet.
1) Enable it in the BIOS
2) Download the software for Cool'n'Quiet
3) Set it in the OS properties in the same manner as you would for Powernow.
Cool'n'Quiet has to have a motherboard that supports it. I cannot confirm if this is as simple as a BIOS upgrade to enable this feature. Remember that notebooks and desktops are treated differently but it would seem that Cool'n'Quiet would be more efficient for notebook battery life since the processor would, on average, run at a lower voltage setting for most of the time thus extending battery life. When you would need full speed then it would kick up to that...such as during gaming.
But then you are fully aware that you are sucking your battery dry.
1000 MHz, if I'm right, is a new step in A64 socket 939 motherboards. If I remember correctly 800 MHz was the previous HT link maximum and this would be especially true of Socket 754.
Now where's Thrax to confirm this for me?
CRAPWEASEL. Damn graphs...input one letter and get distracted and the whole charting system goes fer poop. Yes it is an ASUS K8V. Think of it this way...
"What mobo is it?"
"S'K8V."
its still an awesome article
Okay...did some poking about and I've got real answers for you.
- C'n'Q requires logic (HW) on the CPU chip itself to support, and yes... this has been implemented in all Athlon 64 desktop processors
- C'n'Q requires corresponding motherboard logic (HW) to support the functionality... that's up to mobo vendors, but I think you'll find most supporting it
- PowerNow! is the technology for the mobile segment and yes, it requires CPU and mobo logic (HW) support as well.
I don't think it's possible find any K8 laptops that do not support PowerNow! Check your power settings... it's probably locked in "Max Battery" or "Presentation" mode. Select "minimal power management" in the power settings tab which puts C'n'Q in automatic mode... just like PowerNow!
Keep in mind that C'n'Q and PowerNow! do not affect the speed of the HyperTransport link operation, just the CPU multiplier used for frequency determination for the processor.
It's the 200MHz LDT bus with a 5x multiplier. Rumour has it that AMD is about to bless 1GHz HT links.
But it is not a fiscally sound thing to use either, right. CAN use registered non-ECC but not worth spending the bucks in most cases unless you soon plan to change abords to one with Registered RAM recognition in BIOS, and ECC or Registered plus ECC is not a good thing to use on a board that does not have BIOS support for it.
Real old boards and early PC gens ECC was an upgerade option for mots of boxes. BIOSs could use either. A BIOS that can ECC recognize and an OS that can map accordingly are major requirements for ECC, plus tight power cycle timings and voltages on whole board.
I would slightly mod what MM said as to registered-only RAM, but as to ECC do not use unless your board supports it, whether registered plus ECC or non-registered ECC which is a questionable thing to offer or use these days anyway compared to higher end Registered plus ECC. Registered feature is mostly a quality assurance thing, and used mostly with servers that use ECC for data integrity assurance on hardware. And ECC plus registered RAM needs tighter sync ratios to work right and sync to CPU than other more generic but high quality RAM does-- for pure Extreme OCing, would not use registered plus ECC, period. You will get a system that is very picky about what combos of timings it will accept if you use registered plus ECC-- but much better assurance of integrity of data in RAM at correct timings for RAM and CPU.
We have ignored BUFFERED RAM here, that is something else having to do with using physical (usually smaller) modules as temp storage right on the stick of RAM. Some ECC can be physically also buffered RAM (and I have seen buffered non-ECC at certain time sin history, in the age of SIMMs as best available, and BIOSs that could detect buffers on sticks). That can give you a RAM to bus latency decrease potential if the stick is QC'd right at mfr. I would not bother buying buffered OEM grade RAM. Expect to pay for QC checking of guaranteed buffered RAM.
Buffered is the same as registered, and it also will not work.
RAM can have buffers.
RAM can be unbuffered
RAM can have registers
Registers are not buffers.
Therefore:
You can have unbuffered ECC Registered memory.
You can have buffered Registered Memory.
You can have unbuffered ECC memory.
You can have unbuffered memory.
You can have buffered ECC Registered memory.
I believe non-parity = "non-registered"
I believe parity = "registered"
ECC Reg and unbuffered - non-parity are the two most common for our particular world.
But...... You can have ecc memory thats either buffered or non buffered. The buffered is "registered ecc". The non bufferred is regular ecc and is not registered.
All non ecc memory is also non registered and thus non bufferred.
You actually have three types of sdram/ddr then
1) non bufferred/non registered.
2) ecc thats non buffered which is the same thing as ecc thats non registerred. ecc comes in both flavors
3) ecc that is buffered.... and this is another name for "registerred ecc" if its registerred its also ecc in all cases. You can't have registered memory thats also not ecc.
parity is = ecc.
non parity is = non ecc.
parity is the extra chip that does the error correction and has nothing to do with registerred or non registered.
Just trying to clear up the confusion. Did that help at all?
Tex
Thanks for digging up the info, MM. I'm sorry that I forgot to mention at first, it's not just me having this problem. So far, every A64 notebook I've seen has had the 800MHz on battery issue. Supposedly, manufacturers need to release a BIOS update. I think. There were also ramblings that it's a Microsoft issue, since the speed will step up to full on an A64 nb in Win2K, but not XP.
Guest
I'm a gamer who just bought a used system based on the Athlon FX-51 in an Asus SK8V mobo... the system is pretty much loaded (1GB DIMM of Kingston ECC, 160GB SATA + 40GB RAID 0 HDDs, 256MB Radeon 9800), I got it for $1150, it seemed at the time like a great deal but after reading your article, part of me wonders if maybe the guy was dumping it because he knows the upgrade options will be limited for Socket 940.
Can you or anyone else hazard a guess as to how many more Opterons will come out for this socket, since Athlon FX is moving over to Socket 939? If some Socket 940 Opterons ever get up around 3GHz a year or two from now then I'd have a pretty clear upgrade path.
-Adam in Philly
Let's not start enscribing the epitaph for Socket 940 as of yet. It's true that Socket 939 will be the top end enthusiast line simple because of the less expensive motherboard manufacturing process (we're talking dollars here...not 10's or 100's of dollars) and, of course, the less expensive unbuffered RAM.
Let's look at what you got. A heckuva deal on one really fast system. Think of it this way...in order to get a noticeable boost in performance there must be a significant jump in processor speed. Moving from FX-51 to FX-53 is indeed faster but measureable only by benchmarks and not really in the "feel" of the two given identical setups. By the time a processor level comes out that provides a worthwhile processor upgrade. (FX-61? FX-71?) the whole pricing and scope of the platform is going to change.
I am presuming that Socket 939 will be to AMD what Socket 462 was. Remember how at the beginning of one year we were just approaching the 1 GHz barrier and then zoom...1.4 and 1.6 GHz. Just about that time the PR rating came into effect. There were some significant jumps in processor speeds.
Now we sit at 3800+ (2.4 GHz in Intelanguagese) at the start of a new Socket. Could we all be in for another year of jumps? I could see 3 GHz perhaps but it's anyone's guess. It is for certain that new processors will come out...they may be faster in GHz but I think they will "mushroom" in other areas such what happened with larger on die cache, HT links and so on.
You've got a pretty lickety split system at a good price. Be happy. By the time you "need" a new system ...things will have changed again. PCI Express and so on.
Those that always keep up with the bleeding edge of technology probably are millionaires. I'm selling off body parts to keep me in the game.
Socket 940 will continue on in the form of Opteron 1xx processors. Loosely defined think of FX-xx as the "limited" edition or sports model since FX 940 is based on Opteron 1xx 940.
Remember that Opteron 1xx processors will always be coming out in new frequency flavors so the upgrade path will be there. You just may not see as many FX-xx launches as those are, at best words, special events.
Socket 940 isn't dead...it's had it's place in the spotlight and now 939 will be taking it's place in the spotlight for a while.
It's actually:
Thunderbird (Athlon), Spitfire (Thunderbird-derived Duron), Palomino (Athlon XP), Morgan (Palomino-derived Duron), Thoroughbred (.13u Athlon XP), Barton (.13u Athlon XP w/ 512k cache), Applebred (Thoroughbred-derived Durons), Appaloosa (Barton-derived Duron never released), Thorton (Barton with 256k L2).
You have cleared up my doubts regarding upgrade path between 939-940 sockets. I also agree with getting you published. Your tone and content are what PC people seek... like a good conversation.
cheers and keep it up.
More Enlightened