[Seven!]

If I were to run two setups, one with an Athlon 3000+ (AM2) and the other with an Athlon 3000+ (939), would the AM2 perform better?

[Advertisements]

A little, not by alot, it would run a little cooler.

[warriorscot]

A little, not by alot, it would run a little cooler.

[jrm20]

If I were to run two setups, one with an Athlon 3000+ (AM2) and the other with an Athlon 3000+ (939), would the AM2 perform better?

If you were to compare a 3000+ 939 to a 3000+ am2 the amd am2 would be the better chip to get just because for future upgradability alone..

I would stick with am2 for the better upgrade path for the future.

There isnt really much performance to gain on the am2 socket at all if any it would be very small.. Maybe 5%-7% increase max you would ever see from an am2 chip over the socket 939 on CERTAIN applications.

In real world performance you probably wouldnt tell a difference but be smart and stick with am2 for upgradability.

[Neil Jones]

The differences at this time are so insignificant IMO they're not worth worrying about.

AM2 isn't much to get worked up about at this time until the better top-end chips start to come out, so in my own opinion, considering how one would have to also buy new memory and PCI-Express graphics (if you don't have them already) to run an AM2 system, if you can transfer stuff into a 939 system, it works out a bit cheaper.

On the other hand though, AM2 is the next big thing and will not be superseded by AM3 until at least 2008 (and one will be able to use AM3 processors in AM2 boards but not vice-versa) so it will be around for a while yet.