Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I can't really tell the difference which is a compatible mobo for my AMD Athlon 64 which uses 0.13 micron technology ....

Socket 939

Most AMD Athlon 64 CPUs use the 90 nm tech. isn't that rite?

I can't find a compatible Mobo for this CPU and it's not refundable(CPU)....



Please help .... I prefer newegg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,572 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by lilsmarty

I can't really tell the difference which is a compatible mobo for my AMD Athlon 64 which uses 0.13 micron technology ....

Socket 939

Most AMD Athlon 64 CPUs use the 90 nm tech. isn't that rite?

I can't find a compatible Mobo for this CPU and it's not refundable(CPU)....



Please help .... I prefer newegg


If your CPU is socket 939 then any socket 939 mobo is compatiable.

If you dont want a PCI-E mobo because you want to keep your AGP graphics card then I would say the best mobo to get at the moment is Abit AV8 3RD Eye (939)... Do some searching and you should find it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
well not really , remember the detail of the AMD Athlon 64 3500+ WITH THE 0.13 Micron technology...

Most mobos only accept 90-nanometer technology CPUs and I can't return my CPU..

Edit: Please note that i Already bought a Mobo wit the socket 939 and it was incompatible even tho my CPU was socket 939.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
Well that's just plain not right unfortunately. Athlon 64s were first introduced on 130nm technology, and the only core thus far to use 90nm techs are the Winchester. All socket 939 CPUs should work in all Socket 939 motherboards, regardless of transistor size. Either the board you got was faulty or you did something wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
What's your point? all symptons point to failed motherboard circutry to me.

I'm just trying to help here, but there's no logicly reasoning in thinking that board doesn't suppoer 130nm chips because they are exactly identicle, except that the 90nm chips have smaller transistors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Quote:


Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy

What's your point? all symptons point to failed motherboard circutry to me.

\\

Check out the link sumone gave me about the CPU compatibilty chart
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
Clawhammer
Athlon64 3600+ (FSB200)
1024KB 1.500
4000+ (FSB200)
1024KB 1.500
Newcastle
Athlon64 3800+ (FSB200)
512KB 1.500
Sledgehammer
Athlon64 FX FX-53 (FSB200)
1024KB 1.500
FX-55 (FSB200)
1024KB 1.500

I see nothing about process size. I don't even trust that, there's no such thing as a 3600....
This just doesn't make sense...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
Well I still find it extremely difficult to believe that they would make a board that doesn't support the previous versions of the Socket 939 chips, especially considering its on the K8T800 Pro chipset which was released quite a while ago. The first thing I would try to return the board for a new one, or if you want a different one, get something like an ASUS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Quote:


Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy

Well I still find it extremely difficult to believe that they would make a board that doesn't support the previous versions of the Socket 939 chips, especially considering its on the K8T800 Pro chipset which was released quite a while ago. The first thing I would try to return the board for a new one, or if you want a different one, get something like an ASUS

Is it maybe a shocked CPU because I went to Fry's to return it once since the pins were bent and they gave a new one and I afraid they shocked the CPU when giving me a new CPU ....

Or is it the Mobo? Should i try getting a Nforce Ultra Chipset instead?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
The nForce chipsets have proven themselves to be the better choice, in my opinon at least, but MSI is the only manufacture that I know of that offers nForce on Socket 939. A dead CPU could be the problem as well, but something is definately not working correctly, be it CPU or motehrboard, and the only way to find out is to swap one or the other.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy

Clawhammer
Athlon64 3600+ (FSB200)
1024KB 1.500
4000+ (FSB200)
1024KB 1.500
Newcastle
Athlon64 3800+ (FSB200)
512KB 1.500
Sledgehammer
Athlon64 FX FX-53 (FSB200)
1024KB 1.500
FX-55 (FSB200)
1024KB 1.500

I see nothing about process size. I don't even trust that, there's no such thing as a 3600....
This just doesn't make sense...

i still find it humorous that a A64 3800+
is a failed FX 53
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by spookedjunglist

i still find it humorous that a A64 3800+
is a failed FX 53


Eh?
3800 = 512K L2 2.4GHz
FX-53 = 1024K L2 2.4GHz

A 4000 is a rebranded FX-53 without the unlocked multis if that's what you mean
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
the FX-53 couldnt pass all 1024kb of its cache so they test it at 512k , if it passes at 512k then it becomes a 3800+

ive heard this from multiple sources...
including um the net...
and maximum PC magazine...
Maximum PC leans towards amd procs so i dont see why they would lie
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
That would make sense except FX's and 3800s are total different cores

FXs use SledgeHammer cores with 1024K L2 Cache, 3800s and lower use NewCastle/Winchester Cores with 512K of L2 Cache.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top