Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:22:41 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: utisoft@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD Athlon64 Mainboard - NOT SPAM: please check it out :) Message-ID: <4D1403F1.3070607@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=zbstLG-1yHnHYFd14OAQWKrqYeS1ZJzbFbYCr@mail.gmail.com> References: <4D130719.5090203@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <AANLkTi=Lsz7GXFce_jiE4BNHFQwik_-9O25sVvgvqNvC@mail.gmail.com> <4D133600.4010002@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <AANLkTimQww5wkw=%2B4cbBXcEBwX61271G5uh5pCWoN4KQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D135558.4000101@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <AANLkTi=zbstLG-1yHnHYFd14OAQWKrqYeS1ZJzbFbYCr@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/24/10 01:44, Chris Rees wrote: > On 23 December 2010 13:57, Da Rock > <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote: > >> On 12/23/10 23:16, Chris Rees wrote: >> >>> On 23 December 2010 11:44, Da Rock >>> <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks, but Athlon64 is a 939. Yeah, it may not be worth salvaging, but I >>>> thought the cost might be less... I'm more than likely wrong. Worth >>>> putting >>>> feelers out, though :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Athlon64s can be 754, 939 or AM2. Perhaps you meant *your* Athlon64 is a >>> 939? >>> >>> Sorry you're not having much luck. >>> >>> If I knew the Aussie market I'd help you to pick something comparable, >>> but that's better left to someone more local for you! >>> >>> Hope you get some results soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Well thats from memory, and it is pretty old now I agree. Might have been a >> local thing then. As I remember it only the Athlon and then Semperon's were >> 754. The 64's and FX's were 939. The later Athlons were AM2, but that was >> just after I got this one, and they're the X2's I believe. But again, that >> may have been local. >> > I think you're thinking of Socket 462. This might clear it up a little: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon64 > > Chris > No, but you're right I'll agree. Mustn't have been available via my sources though- only the 32bit processors were 754 here, 64 had to be a 939. Probably some smartarse' marketing ploy... :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D1403F1.3070607>