Is 4400 X2 really better than 4200 X2

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I realise this link below is single core Venice vs. San Deigo but it may give you an idea

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=219&num=1


In general it will be benefical 3-5%. BUT not 20% benefical like the 4400's gouged premiums price sets you back 20%.

As always the lowest rated chip in any iteration is best price/performance deal.

Actually 3-5% is being generous...i did this back awhile ago where I compared a 3800+ sckt 939 versus the 4000+ sckt 939....both 2.4ghz and they showed 1-3% in most all non games...in show a ocmplete no show....

cache should be no different IMO with the venice and how it inreacts with the apps...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-venice_10.html

Just look at the newcastle 512kb sckt 939 vs clawhammer 1mb sckt 939...dont look at the venice cause it has E core revisions...

 

[terroradagio]

From what I can tell, the 4200 do indeed seem to be overclocking better for some reason. I just went with the 4400 because it wasn't a big price jump. The 4400 are in higher demand, meaning less availability.

Either one is screaming fast. Which ever one you choose will rock.