AMD CPU help

So the main family PC is a Shuttle XPC currently running an Socket 939 Athlon 64 3000+ (1.8GHz) and 1GB (2x512MB) of Corsair cheap ram and will be 4 years old this coming January.

In looking at some possible RAM and CPU upgrades I'm trying to determine which CPU to go with, a San Diego FX-53 (2.4GHz) or a San Diego A64 4000+ (2.4GHz). Is there any other real differences or advantages to the FX-53? I believe the FX-53 is 130nm construction while the A64 4000+ is 90nm but what does that really mean, anything?

Also, anyone have any good recommendations for external HDD's (USB2.0 or Firewire) for backing up? Do any of these come with backup software?

I tried, but none of the translators can put that question into english.

Eddie, are you running a 64 bit OS? If not, don't wast money on the 64 bit processors. I haven't shopped for or built a machine in a while, what's the front side bus speed on those processors? Something around 2.4 GHz w/ an 800 MHz+ FSB speed, and Ram that can keep up will make for a little screamer of a home PC . Remember, the chain's only as strong as the weakest link, so if you get a fast processor and MoBo, but skimp on the ram and go with something that can't run the higher bus speeds, you're going to be stuck at that slower speed.

And as far as external HDDs, buy a 2.25" external enclosure off of ebay and a good hard drive and slap them together. You'll save yourself a bit of coin. Last I checked, you can get USB enclosures in the $10 range

Hope that helps.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, instead of an external hard drive, getting a MoBo with a built in RAID controller can be as effective for keeping your data safe, and can increase performance when implemented correctly.

John, put the mask on and try reading it again. What you don't have it with you at work?!

[amaff], there is no FSB...

Wikipedia said: As the memory controller is integrated onto the CPU die, there is no FSB for the system memory to base its speed upon. Instead, system memory speed is obtained by using the following formula... In simpler terms, the memory is always running at a set fraction of the CPU speed, with the divisor being a whole number. A 'FSB' figure is still used to determine the CPU speed, but the RAM speed is no longer directly related to this 'FSB' figure (known otherwise as the LDT). To summarize, the Athlon 64 architecture features two buses from the CPU. One is the HT bus to the northbridge connecting the CPU to the chipset and device attachment bus (PCIe, AGP, PCI) and the other is the memory bus which connects the on-board memory controller to the bank of either DDR or DDR2 DRAM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64#Features

But I was planning on also upgrading to some Corsair XMS 2x1GB PC3200 (DDR400) ram or equivalent which is the most speed and quantity this mobo can handle.

^Technically, on this particular processor, the FSB in terms of the normal use of the word, is 200mhz. It's always the true "clock" of the memory, regardless if the controller is on the motherboard or the cpu itself. The plus side to the controller being on the CPU is that it's faster communication. The negative side only shows when overclocking.

The 90nm vs. 130nm simply refers to die size, typically, the smaller the number the better.

The Socket 939 cpus were FREAKISHLY fast running 32-bit OS, and i think it would definitely be worth the money to upgrade to a faster CPU, considering how cheap they are at this moment. I wouldn't mess with the FX-53 unless it's cheaper than the 4000+. I've had both, and from a performance standpoint, not a WHOLE lot of difference, and the 4000+ tends to play nicer with more motherboards.

That, and as much ram as you can throw at the thing should extend the life some.

That's basically what I was thinking. A quick check on evilBay shows A64 4000+'s going for around $50 and 2GB Corsair XMS ram for around $80 shipped. FX chips are still commanding a relative premium and I'm not planning on OC'ing so the unlocked multiplier isn't a big selling point either.

Why aren't we looking at the dual-core 939s like the 3800 X2.

MCarp22 wrote: Why aren't we looking at the dual-core 939s like the 3800 X2.

I can't remember the specifics.... the only dual cores i got into were the Opteron 939s, and i do remember having to get a specific motherboard for that.

I'd have to look into it, but that may be the reason?

That being said, the dual cores on his basic setup with only 2gb of ram, 32-bit OS.... meh. Not really worth it. The problem with those dual cores is that they came out before anything was even written for them.

At the risk of over-simplifying things...

I've noticed a significant real world increase in speed when I maxed out the RAM on any machine I've owned. RAM, for me, has been the best upgrade I could purchase. I've even bought more RAM in place of more cpu speed and been surprised at how that can wake up a machine.

For back-up HDD I would go with Western Digital Seagate. I know my Western Digital 500gb external drive came with back up software. You can set it to back-up any time. I usually set mine for 3am once a week.

And right now to find a 939 AMD CPU is going to be hard. I was going to build a new computer last year and wanted to go with 939 and couldn't find much (even on Newegg.com).

You would be better off getting a new computer if you can or try ebay.

For $130, I don't think so.