• 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.

why not a 4600+ dual core 1MB?

L

loco21

Senior member
Can some 1 tell me why AMD din't made a cpu 4600+ with 1 mb x2 and they just jump from 4400+ 1 mb and the next 1 is 2 x 512?

thanks in advance!!
 
They ramp up the clock speed in the 4600 to 2.4ghz x2 but halve the cache. lol Notice the marketing tecnique to get the 4800+x2 with double the cache.
4200 2.2/512
4400 2.2/1024
4600 2.4/512
4800 2.4/1024
 
Exactly what I was thinking.

@Acadien : The 4600+ looks like a dual-core 3800+. I would assume that it would overclock close to similarly. But don't count on a 100% match.
 
Originally posted by: loco21
Can some 1 tell me why AMD din't made a cpu 4600+ with 1 mb x2 and they just jump from 4400+ 1 mb and the next 1 is 2 x 512?
Click to expand...

It is be cause the 4800 is the 4600 with 2 x 1mb of cache. Extra cache usually means extra performance. A 2.4GHz 4600+ with 2 x 512KB is going to be a little bit slower than a 2.4GHz X2 with 2 x 1MB. Thus because the 2.4GHZ (2x1MB) > 2.4GHz (2x512KB), it comes with a greater model number as well 4800+ > 4600+. However, because clock speed offers greater performance than more cache, the 4600+ > 4400+ despite the 4400+ having more cache, it is 200MHz slower.

In order to have a "4600+" with 2x1MB of cache, we'd need something like a 2.3GHz part with 2x1MB but this wouldn't make much sense and would cause too much confusion.

When you hear or see "X2 4600+", if you're up on it all you'll know exactly that its a 2.4GHz chip with 2x512KB of cache. If there was another 4600+ with a different amount of cache you wouldn't easily know what you were getting now would you?

If you want the cache but cannot afford the 4800+, then you need to consider overclocking and the 4400+. However it has been proven that cache can generally only give you bragging rights as clock speed has been proven king when it comes to determining performance. The more MHz the better. It is why the newly announced lower end X2s are causing a stir, without the large amount of cache they'll still be highly anticipated if they turn out to be good overclockers as more clock speed is definitely far preferable than more cache.
 
Possibly to do with yields.
If one core's L2 is partially defective, half of the L2 can be disabled.
Obviously, the clockspeed will have to be increased to compensate, but this could be why we see AMD releasing models with the same rating, but different L2/clock speeds.
 
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: loco21
Can some 1 tell me why AMD din't made a cpu 4600+ with 1 mb x2 and they just jump from 4400+ 1 mb and the next 1 is 2 x 512?
Click to expand...

It is be cause the 4800 is the 4600 with 2 x 1mb of cache. Extra cache usually means extra performance. A 2.4GHz 4600+ with 2 x 512KB is going to be a little bit slower than a 2.4GHz X2 with 2 x 1MB. Thus because the 2.4GHZ (2x1MB) > 2.4GHz (2x512KB), it comes with a greater model number as well 4800+ > 4600+. However, because clock speed offers greater performance than more cache, the 4600+ > 4400+ despite the 4400+ having more cache, it is 200MHz slower.

In order to have a "4600+" with 2x1MB of cache, we'd need something like a 2.3GHz part with 2x1MB but this wouldn't make much sense and would cause too much confusion.

When you hear or see "X2 4600+", if you're up on it all you'll know exactly that its a 2.4GHz chip with 2x512KB of cache. If there was another 4600+ with a different amount of cache you wouldn't easily know what you were getting now would you?

If you want the cache but cannot afford the 4800+, then you need to consider overclocking and the 4400+. However it has been proven that cache can generally only give you bragging rights as clock speed has been proven king when it comes to determining performance. The more MHz the better. It is why the newly announced lower end X2s are causing a stir, without the large amount of cache they'll still be highly anticipated if they turn out to be good overclockers as more clock speed is definitely far preferable than more cache.
Click to expand...

well thaks to everybody for you rapid responce but especially to
bunnyfubbles you answered my question. I was looking to buy a new x2 I do have the money for the 4800+ but if I get a 4600+ I can buy myself another video card and use sli so I saw the 4600+ but with out the 1mb and that's when I started to think on why not a 4600+ with 1mb. So what you are saying is that a 4600+ is faster than a 4400+ with 1mb even thou the 4600+ doesn't have 1 mb. I don't oc but I want something very fast beside the 4800+ because I do alot of multi tasking on my computer. I don't want to change my motherboard and change to a pentuim.
 
Here is how they are speed wise:

4800+ is faster than 4600+ which is faster than 4400+ which is faster than 4200+.

The model numbers indicate their performance respectively to one another.

The 4600+ and the 4800+ differ only in the amount of L2 cache as stated above, but, the difference is so small, that you would never be able to tell the difference in any scenario.
 
Originally posted by: Acadien
Im going to take my 4400 to around 2.6...anyone have experiance OC to this speed?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have two running at 2560, have seen 2600, but not quite perfectly stable at 1.47v. I don't want to go higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top