• 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.

Dual Core 4400+ is a good deal!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
well, a 3000+ winny for <$100 will be here before we know it. If they are still OC'ing to ~2.6ghz, I think they will remain the best deal from AMD

but I agree the 4400+ is the sweet spot and the price is probably where it should be. I will still wait till they drop below at least $400 though, when I think about things I spend money on, $550 is kind of high. Thats 5x$100 + $50, I could buy a lot of other cool things with that money
 
I think $550 for what you get really is a sweet deal. I'm getting a 3700+ San Diego and it looks like the 4400+ is basically two of those in the same die. What will typically happen is that the OS will occupy one CPU's allocations while your other apps will occupy the other. So the system should be much smoother all the way around even without multi-threaded apps, which will take awhile to come on market. Add your typical OC'ing capabilities and it just looks like Intel will still not have any kind of performance edge - but of course you can OC Intels too. I personally feel both sides have good platforms and that the AMD-Intel competition is always good news for us.

I really like the dual core trend because I've built dual-core servers on several occasions for home use (this was in the Pentium 133/200MMX days, with Tyan motherboards) and what this does is it moves the fan base away from just thinking about clock speed and towards asking the software jocks to work harder to get more out of the hardware instead of allowing clock speeds to mask sloppy programming practices. (Like, er, Java.) There also seems to be serious talk about four cores per die, which may happen sooner than we think. At that point, true hardware-accelerated multithreading for all apps becomes reality.
 
I think as far as money you can save with overclocking, the 4400 will be unrivalled. I mean, even if dual cores don't overclock so well, ANYONE with half a brain can OC a chip 200mhz, and that's 500+ bucks right there. But we will have to wait and see how these dualies OC. I'm expecting substantial losses as far as overclockablility, simply because you have two chips in such close proximity.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Yea I'm loosing all my credibility and reputation on this one Ski😛 I Better STFU... I just get excited thinking about doing some DVD encodes while fragging @120FPS.😀
Click to expand...

lmfao, you read my mind Z! i know where next year's tax return is going! 😀 the 4400, or better by that time, and whatever vid card is the best at the time. oh yeah! the mrs will kill me, but it'll be worth it! maybe i can convince her to let me live when she finds out she gets this 2.4ghz winnie! one can only hope!
 
Originally posted by: thanatos355
Originally posted by: Zebo
Yea I'm loosing all my credibility and reputation on this one Ski😛 I Better STFU... I just get excited thinking about doing some DVD encodes while fragging @120FPS.😀
Click to expand...

lmfao, you read my mind Z! i know where next year's tax return is going! 😀 the 4400, or better by that time, and whatever vid card is the best at the time. oh yeah! the mrs will kill me, but it'll be worth it! maybe i can convince her to let me live when she finds out she gets this 2.4ghz winnie! one can only hope!
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly I don't get returns but end up paying each year. You think I'm gunna intrest free loan the government money during the year. I don't think so.😀

From an overclockers stand point, Intel is offering the "bang for the Buck" in DC from the 820 for $240 but is that savings negated by expensive system price? I.E. Expensive DDR2 and Expensive intel Sli board? I think it will be. Intels won't get much past 3.4 due to prescott. I have high confidence in A64 x2 seeing 2.8 blowing away the former performance wise. No matter how you look at it dual cores can not be compared to thier single core couterparts in any way. Its a different product, different experiance, different use which only can compared to one another dual core IMO.
 
Zebo - are you arriving at your 2.8ghz OC prediction based on the best currently available 939's? Or a preliminary OC report of the 4400+?

2.8 would be incredible, if thats the common OC when these are released, I'll be sure to blow all my cash before AMD starts re-specing the CPU in the ensuing weeks (a la CBBID, which I regretably own)

About comparing dual-cores to single-cores, of course they can be compared. Single-cores will be slower compared to dual-cores in everything at the same clock speed, and will do much worse with multitasking. For me, my next CPU will be dual-core, for my parents, they'll get my old Athlon 64 some day. My point is, the AMD X2's are comparatively much more desirable and better than the single cores, based on how they perform. Yes, I'm as smart as Albert Einstein.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Yea I'm loosing all my credibility and reputation on this one Ski😛 I Better STFU... I just get excited thinking about doing some DVD encodes while fragging @120FPS.😀
Click to expand...

Don't worry Zebo, I'll take over the $70 wonderchip duties for you 😀
Actually, I just pre-ordered a Venice bundle off Monarch. This is the first time I've spent over $100 on a processor. I'm a failure. 😛
 
I'll be happy with 2.2 DC @ 2.4 with my Zalman 7000Cu. It will be faster even on single thearded apps 🙂 then what i currently have. A64 @ 2.3
 
Originally posted by: arswihart
Zebo - are you arriving at your 2.8ghz OC prediction based on the best currently available 939's? Or a preliminary OC report of the 4400+?

2.8 would be incredible, if thats the common OC when these are released, I'll be sure to blow all my cash before AMD starts re-specing the CPU in the ensuing weeks (a la CBBID, which I regretably own)
Click to expand...

He's basing the 2.8 on how Venice cores perform, of which 3GHz+ might be possible out of such single cores, so seeing as how the cores shouldn't be much different in how high they can go he's given them bennefit of the doubt that they'll reach 3GHz, 2.8 being a safer claim.

Although I'd personally be happy with matching what I currently have (2.5GHz), although the stock performance I could more than live with, however if I'm going to spend $500 on the chip I'd really like to see 2.6GHz+
 
Originally posted by: arswihart
Zebo - are you arriving at your 2.8ghz OC prediction based on the best currently available 939's? Or a preliminary OC report of the 4400+?

2.8 would be incredible, if thats the common OC when these are released, I'll be sure to blow all my cash before AMD starts re-specing the CPU in the ensuing weeks (a la CBBID, which I regretably own)

About comparing dual-cores to single-cores, of course they can be compared. Single-cores will be slower compared to dual-cores in everything at the same clock speed, and will do much worse with multitasking. For me, my next CPU will be dual-core, for my parents, they'll get my old Athlon 64 some day. My point is, the AMD X2's are comparatively much more desirable and better than the single cores, based on how they perform. Yes, I'm as smart as Albert Einstein.
Click to expand...

No I am guessing based on what I've seen from San deigo on air thus far. 3.0ish. But you will increase temps slightly due to two cores. So 2.8ish seems fair. Besides, they ARE releasing a 2.4 anyway, getting to 2.8 is only 400Mhz more than a stock chip, taken as a percentage increase is very little, 17%.

I may rework my H2O setup for even higher clocks just to see for you guys. I mean I run a reserator type setup which is'nt much better than air.
 
Originally posted by: Avalon
Originally posted by: Zebo
Yea I'm loosing all my credibility and reputation on this one Ski😛 I Better STFU... I just get excited thinking about doing some DVD encodes while fragging @120FPS.😀
Click to expand...

Don't worry Zebo, I'll take over the $70 wonderchip duties for you 😀
Actually, I just pre-ordered a Venice bundle off Monarch. This is the first time I've spent over $100 on a processor. I'm a failure. 😛
Click to expand...

LOL bro you da man, but AMD fails us, we gotta get those $50 chips back ASAP!!!

As a seious aside, one point people often lose site of in doing price/performance valuations is the very first step: The minimum level of performance that will satisfy you computing requirements before applying any kinda of martix. Sure a $40 Duron 1.8 right now has the best price/performance, has had for the last year, but it's slow as a dog even overclocked to 2.5 it's slower than a stock 3000 venice. Dual core presents the same problem. Nothing but another dual core can compare so we start there.

Best of luck with that Venice!!!😀 what board?
 
The problem I have with the x2 line is that there are no lower end models. Why not have a model running at 1.8 or 2.0 GHz, as was initially speculated? I don't even care if AMD offers 512K and 1MB versions, it doesn't matter, I just want a decent $250 or $350 model to work with and maybe OC a bit. Intel has dual cores all the way down to the $240 price point, so why doesn't AMD. I guess they probably just can't make that many chips yet. Oh, well, hopefully by december I'll get what I want, by then it'll be a good time to put my 3000+ into a HTPC anyways.
 
. I guess they probably just can't make that many chips yet
Click to expand...

That's a good theory. I guess thier thinking is when you can only make so many why not front the ones with the highest margins when theres idiots out there like me who will buy it instead of bringing low margin 1.8's and 2.0's? It's the same chips after all, some like a 1.8 DC@$200 would make AMD ~$80 ea. while others make AMD $250-$700 ea. If you're limited in capacity and there's demand you definity bring the high-end ones first IMO.
 
Wouldnt it make sense to use third party fabs to make some of the lower end chips? Its more the design than the manufacturing process that makes A64's such good chips, couldnt an A64 run at maybe 1.8ghz on a standard 90nm process without SOI? So why not let Chartered, IBM, or TSMC make some for you and soak up all the market share you can? The more ppl that buy A64 now means more ppl upgrade to another AMD platform in the future. This would be perfect for the average joe, they dont need a miracle chip which costs $100 bucks and overclocks 50%, they just need a chip that costs $100 bucks. Less time spent pissing around making chips slower than their potential=faster chips for AMD. While I admit this may not be a good solution for us overclockers, it does make good business sense.
 
It's my understanding these farmed out jobs will all be old tech, 130nm, Semprons (aka thoroughbreds). Too much IP theft can occur with farming out latest and greatest... AMD needs FAB 36 like today not a year from now.
 
Hmmm, point taken. However, I dont see IBM stealing anything from AMD, what they dont already have access to per their partnership, they probably have something superior. And nvidia and ati seem to do alright with 3rd party fabs. I agree AMD does need fab36 yesterday, I just wish they had built it here in the states where they are owned and operated. My point really is I think that if they are really ever going to rival intel, they need marketshare, not higher profit margins. Look at apple, huge margins, but huge margins on small marketshare still means small profit. This would be best for us consumers to have a more productive rivalry between AMD and Intel, similar to how the rivalry between ATI and Nvidia have led to much better products for the consumer.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
I may rework my H2O setup for even higher clocks just to see for you guys. I mean I run a reserator type setup which is'nt much better than air.
Click to expand...



i may, finally, consider moving TO water cooling for that bad boy. i have been looking at the big water setup, but i just dont know.
 
Hey Zebo.

I agree, however I am simply convinced that it will be a reasonable deal until... Christmas. Imagine the cost of a PCIe board, an nForce 4 mobo (or its revision by then) plus the price of the processor would be well over $800USD; Quite a bit of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top