• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Best bang for buck?

Pure bang for buck - X2 3800+ followed closely by X2 4200+. A a rule of thumb, lower end CPUs are generally better value than middle to high end parts.
 
3800 can be easily OCed to a 4800 so I'd choose the 3800. With the proper setup OCing to 2.6 is very possible
 
Originally posted by: Skott
3800 can be easily OCed to a 4800 so I'd choose the 3800. With the proper setup OCing to 2.6 is very possible
Click to expand...

4600+ (2.4GHz) right? The 4800+ is a different cache size, so there's no direct equivalence with a 3800+ OC.
 
My 3800+ does 2.4ghz with no problems, stock voltage. I didn't try to push it any further. I did buy a $25 freezer 64 pro fan, the 939 X2 comes with a plain aluminum heat sink, the 4200+ (and all AM2's?) have the better heatpipe one. Still came out way ahead
 
Originally posted by: betasub
Originally posted by: Skott
3800 can be easily OCed to a 4800 so I'd choose the 3800. With the proper setup OCing to 2.6 is very possible
Click to expand...

4600+ (2.4GHz) right? The 4800+ is a different cache size, so there's no direct equivalence with a 3800+ OC.
Click to expand...



The cache doesnt make a huge amount of difference. Some but not a huge amount. The 4800s are 2.4. FX60s are 2.6 I think so if you OC a 3800 to 2.6 you have a proc that'll be faster than a 4600. OCers usually look for best bang for buck. In this case the 3800 is best because you are overclocking it upwards to what the higher chips will do or more.

Now if you arent going to overclock then the answer could be entirely different. You are stuck with getting the most (fastest) pc your money can buy.
 
If you don't need to buy a better heatsink for the X2 4200, then wouldn't it probably be a better deal. You don't have to spend the extra $30 for a new heatsink, and you get a higher rated chip with a higher multiplier.
 
Best bang for the buck is the 4400 89 watts. It is much better overclocker, has 2mb L2 cache, and low TDP w/ high TcaseMax(71c), and is a Toledo, like FX60/62. The 4400 used to be around $500 where as the 3800 was $290. 4400's dropped 55%, 3800 dropped 45%. The 4400 89w overclocks to 2.9gh only w/ 1.4v vcore but 3800's need more vcore increase. I have overclocked 4400 (89w) to 3.1 ghz w/ 1.5v vcore and stock HSF.
A 4400 can easily be considered an FX62 since it's Toledo (same as FX) and has 2mb L2. Another word, you have an Fx62 for 1/4 of the price.
 
The OP never mentioned overclocking. That being said, the X2-3800+ is the best bang for your buck among the CPUs listed.
 
Most likely the 3800+, but depending on your motherboard you might get better overclocking results with the 4200+ because of its 11x multiplier.
 
My equipment is listed in my box. I have the 3700 already. I have never overclocked and am not familiar with it. I know you lose your warranty if you do. I have thought about it but just don't know if I dare. I know a lot about computers as I have built close to 50 now but still have not taken the plunge.
I like to hear what other people think because many opinions can give you good ideas.
Will the 4400 or even the 4200 give me much of a performance increase? Would it be worth it? Will my zalman fan fit the 4200?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top