• 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.

How much better would a X2 4400 be than a X2 3800 for encoding?

sprtfan

Senior member
I was told that the amount of cache would make a bid difference when encoding. Would the larger cache on the X2 4400 make enough of a difference to noticable reduce the time it would take? It would be worth the extra $75 to me if it does but if it is only going to save me a few minutes then it wouldn't be worth it. Any feedback would be great. thanks
 
Originally posted by: sprtfan
I was told that the amount of cache would make a bid difference when encoding. Would the larger cache on the X2 4400 make enough of a difference to noticable reduce the time it would take? It would be worth the extra $75 to me if it does but if it is only going to save me a few minutes then it wouldn't be worth it. Any feedback would be great. thanks

If you clock up the 3800+ enough you can overcome the lesser cache and be faster than a stock 4400+. Of course, overclocking a 4400+ would be even better 😀

For $75 I say go for it. (The 4400+)
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
I'd say go E6300, or even E6400.

I could probably go with a E6300 and a Gigabyte S3 for about $124 more depending on what kind of ram I would need to get . I was going with a skt 939 because I was able to get an Asus A8NSLI deluxe board for $43. I would probably be better off selling the Asus board and going the Conroe route. At stock speeds the X2 4400 was pretty close to the E6300 I thought but once overclocked the E6300 was much faster.
I'm going to be using the computer as a media server for the most part so I want it to be stable.
 
Back
Top