Hi im thinking about building a new computer and i was look at the amx 64s. why do they have diff sockets? the newcastle has the socket 754 but the Clawhammer has socket 940?
what one should i get? will one mostlikely be discontinuned? what one will give me better performance and upgreadability?

what one will give me my moneys worth?

the 940 is dual channel

the cheapest gives you your best money's worth

There are Athlon 64 clawhammers with socket 754, the difference between the two is that regular Athlon 64's use socket 754 while Athlon 64 FX's use socket 940.

In addition to the dual channel interface johnoh mentioned Athlon 64 FX (940) has three hyperTransport ports compared to regular Athlon 64 (754)'s one hyperTransport port.

There is also the winchester core (socket 939) that is likely to replace the regular athlon 64 core and it should hit the market much later this year based on speculation.

I just hope AMD did what they did with the Socket A, as that has been out for years and still going strong, just hope AMD won't be changing sockets every few months

The Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX are basically identical in everything except the Athlon 64 FX can run Dual Channel ( 6.4gb sec ) while the Athlon 64 runs Single Channel ( 3.2gb sec )

They are both extremely high performance processors and I think the Athlon 64 FX is not worth it's price, the Athlon 64 is much cheaper and has almost the same performance

Did see a rumor that AMD might make the regular Athlon 64 a Dual Channel processor if or when they bring out socket 939, don't know if it's true or not but sounds good =)

________________________
MSI KT8 NEO
Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0ghz
1.0 GB DDR PC3200
2X 160 GB HDD
Hightech Excalibur Radeon 9800 Pro Iceq 128mb
( Core 425 MHz and Memory 380 MHz )

Its all about waiting

When we went from pc133 to ddr266 it allowed the cpu to wait less

When we went from single channel to dual channel it allowed the cpu to wait less

Hypertransport eliminates waiting. Its not about speed.

The celeron maximizes waiting. Its not about speed.

Everything bad and good about computer performance in 2004 is about waiting or the lack of it.

The fx however overdoes it. It is overkill. We do not need hypertransport and dual channel together if it costs that much. HT and single channel is close enough and cheaper.

But it is good to see the problem of waiting identified, and the fx will be remembered kindly even though it overshot the mark.

Everything goes faster except the HDD. Raid 0 and raid 1 both have the good and not so good effects with not many users understand or willing to acquire 2 or 4 HDDs.

S939 will become the main stream socket for AMD accordingly. But, Nvidia has come up with new chipset for AXP still (to be released soon).

Intel has changed the entire numbering system effective almost immediately. With drastic processor speed increase in the last three years, it has been good for the enthusiasts (small fraction of sales). Without big corporate purchase, profit has been minimal for many companies. The most hard hit is the board makers (short product live cycle).

S-478 Prescott is dead after only 2 months, 3.4E is the last one before S-755 is released shortly.

Performance margin is very narrow between the top dogs; A64; FX; 3.2EE; 3.4EE to the affordable 2.4C; AXPM2500/2600 Barton when OC'ed.

The extreme guys still looking for low latency memory to inch higher performance. FX is really aiming at servers where AMD is behind Intel Xeon; IF Dell and Compaq go with Opteron and FX server when the next Corporate Purchase in full swing, AMD is ready this time.

"Its all about waiting"...

Don't forget there is some strong competitiveness going on too.

Intel Pentium 4 EE >> Athlon 64 FX >> (Dual) PowerPC G5.

____________________________
The greatest risk is not taking one

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

I heard that intels 64bit cpu can run dual cpus. Can amd run there 64bit cpus on a dual cpu mobo? If so where can i get one and is it really worth it?