Talk:Socket 939

Athlon64

What has the Athlon64 spot got to do with this socket 939 article? You could rather say like "These CPUs are available for this socket, check out their features at their own article"

POV

Although it does not support DDR2 memory, the combination of various Socket 939 motherboards and Athlon 64/Athlon 64 FX CPUs has been repeatedly shown to either match or outstrip Intel's offerings in performance per dollar ratios when it comes to content creation and gaming. In business applications and multimedia, Intel continues to hold a slight advantage.

Although this is conventional wisdom, there is no actual reference for any of this. As such, I'm removing it from the article. Themindset 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems S939 does indeed not support DDR2 AMD64 Technology: Wired For DDR Memory Technology
Vic 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

CPUs

Can we get a list of CPUs supported by this socket? There can't be that many. Tronno (talk | contribs) 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Athlon 64 FX
Clawhammer (130 nm SOI)
San Diego (90 nm SOI)
Toledo (90 nm SOI)

Athlon 64
Clawhammer (130 nm SOI)
Newcastle (130 nm SOI)
Winchester (90 nm SOI)
Venice (90 nm SOI)
Manchester (90 nm, SOI)
San Diego (90 nm SOI)

Athlon 64 X2
Manchester

Vic, 14:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Socket features? CPU features?

Hmm... The "key features" chapter says things like Eight new 64-bit integer registers, for a total of sixteen. Is this really relevant for the socket? I think that's a CPU feature. The socket does not have anything to do with the registers, and the motherboard can't even detect whether they exist (besides trying to run a program in the CPU, of course). Bisqwit 12:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order?

This article and the corresponding socket 940 article disagree about the chronological order of the sockets. Rōnin 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socket 940 (which needs a rewrite) came before Socket 939. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 01:32, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Too many links

I've removed all of the external links from the 'Context' section. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Imroy 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Availability

Are Socket 939 A64s really as hard to find as the article says? I'm asking because I just bought a new Socket 939 3400+ with motherboard and memory from a reputable online vendor for a decent price. This really needs to be sourced, and it should indicate which models are affected. -lee 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And upon reading it again, I see the part about dual-core processors. D'oh. Still, though, eBay isn't exactly the best of sources for this sort of thing. -lee 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole statement could be removed, I agree that the claim and whole eBay mention has no place. Anyways, this article is not about the X2; this claim about 939 X2s being hard to find should be in the X2 article, not here. The hardcore icon the sandman 03:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the fun, I checked Newegg a few days ago and they still had Socket 939 X2s in stock, with no indication they were going to run out any time soon. That whole block of text can go. -lee 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest CPU available

The Athlon 64 X2 4800+ model was the highest speed processor available in the Socket 939 package.

It actually looks like the Athlon FX-60 is the fastest processor available for Socket 939, but I'm no expert. Should this be changed? PenguiN42 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, so I went ahead and changed it. The Opteron 185 is almost identical to the FX-60, though (lacking only the unlocked multiplier), and in terms of clockspeed the single-core FX-57 had the edge, so talking about which is fastest is a little ambiguous - so I reworked the section a bit to clear things up. Previously, it seemed to contradict itself... 82.44.114.217 (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. I'm currently running an Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Black Edition, which has a clockspeed of 2.8 ghz, in a Socket 939 board, and I'm pretty certain that chips with even higher clockspeeds were available. I'm going to do some research and fix the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.48.193 (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a 939 processor that used the "Black Edition" moniker. The 5400+ is an AM2 processor, not a 939. The absolute fastest dual core Athlon 64 for the 939 socket was the Toledo 4800+ (2.8 GHz). The fastest single core Athlon 64 for the 939 socket was the Opteron 156 (3.0 GHz) .24.28.0.28 (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 4800+ is a 2.4Ghz dual-core part - equivalent to an Opteron 180. Both the Opteron 185 and the FX-60 are faster than that at 2.6Ghz, but (as stated in the article) the Opteron 190 is the fastest dual-core at 2.8Ghz. Good luck finding one though - I am aware of 3-5 in existence 93.97.208.57 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socket 939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100331083253/http://support.amd.com:80/us/Processor_TechDocs/31411.pdf to http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/31411.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Socket AM1 Confusion

While it is possible that some people have referred to Socket 939 as Socket AM1, this should probably be discouraged given that in 2014 AMD branded socket FS1b as Socket AM1. Ballatsea (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]