I'm just doing my homework, preparing for my next CPU upgrade. Looking over the pricewatch links, I noticed that the primary difference between the X2s are frequency and L2 cache, with the latter demanding the higher price. Being rather tight, I am more interested in getting the most for the dollar, rather than whatever is the ultimate. It would appear that the X2 4400 fits this description, because it has the larger 2x1MB L2 caches, at a significantly lower price, the only difference that I could find was .2GHx on the frequency and location of manufacture. From what I have been told, the location that the core comes from, doesn't make as much difference as in the past, and I doubt that the difference in frequency is worth the extra price. The only other consideration was that some came boxed, meaning that they had the HSF, but I was wondering if the HSF from either a 3200+ or a 3500+ would be as good, since that added 30+ dollars to the price? In any case, I don't want to let my miserly ways get in the way and make me regret my decision later. Are my thoughts valid, and is there something else that should be consider...other than going to a Core2?
X2s
- Thread starter Seekermeister
- Start date
If you have 939 or AM2 with a non-dual core cpu then the X2 is a nifty upgrade. Retail box also means you get a 3 year AMD warranty. I'd go for the retail 4200+ since it's still available at a reasonable price ($185).
I did look at the 4200+ exactly for that reason, but it has the small L2 caches and a slightly slower frequency. I've been doing some Googling and I found an article about AMD quad core processors, which are expected around the middle of next year, which I found interesting:
http://www.ggy.com/support/reqequip.asp
I read some remarks here about the 939s being discontinued, but if these quad core will plug into an AMD65 or Opterton socket, that must not be true. I doubt that I will like their prices, so I will probably go for the X2 anyway.
EDIT: I may have been a bit hasty, I just saw the part about "revised X2 for DDRll memory". I guess that means AM2s, rather than 939.
The offer that I saw at Newegg said nothing about their's being OEM, so I assumed that it would still have the 3 year warranty. Although I'm likely wrong.
http://www.ggy.com/support/reqequip.asp
I read some remarks here about the 939s being discontinued, but if these quad core will plug into an AMD65 or Opterton socket, that must not be true. I doubt that I will like their prices, so I will probably go for the X2 anyway.
EDIT: I may have been a bit hasty, I just saw the part about "revised X2 for DDRll memory". I guess that means AM2s, rather than 939.
The offer that I saw at Newegg said nothing about their's being OEM, so I assumed that it would still have the 3 year warranty. Although I'm likely wrong.
The 4200+ and the 4400+ run at the same speed. FWIW the 1MB cache on the 4400+ isn't that much of a performance boost. While certain database functions get a benefit from prefetching, most games and consumer apps will probably see a massive 0% difference from the extra cache. Put the $50 towards a better video card or faster hard drive.
xgsound
Golden Member
- Jan 22, 2002
- 1,374
- 8
- 81
If you currently have a mobo (you didn't say) with skt 939 and DDR1 memory, your window of opportunity for Dual core may be closing. I squeese a buck until it cries for mercy, and I'd get the skt 939 4200+ X2 for $185 now. I believe skt 939 X2 prices have started to rise already, and there are closeout prices for many skt 939 opterons right now.
Jim
Jim
As I said elsewhere, since I can find processors for much, much older processors on pricewatch.com, why would the socket 939 processors totally disappear? I understand that their availability may become limited, but I found that even the single core 939s are still available locally.
You do raise an interesting point...if the Opterons are facing the same fate, then apparently it is not just 939s being effected, because if I understand, they are all socket 940s.
EDIT: Regarding which mobo I have...I have two 939 mobos. One bought when I had to RMA the first. I'm thinking of building a second rig for my Linux machine. If I buy another processor, I will have everything that I need, except a second case and monitor.
I don't have any databases, but I do run a few games. However, this is limited and I never play games online. I remember reading where most games are not multi-threaded. therefore not taking advantage of a dual core. If this is true, then how much do the larger L2 caches effect their performance?
Makaveli
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2002
- 5,026
- 1,624
- 136
Yes dual core currently does nothing for games. As for the cache i've seen anywhere from 5-10% on some games.
The extra cache usually makes up for 1 speed grade
Example.
Opteron 146 which runs at 2.0ghz and has a 1mb cache. will usually equal the performance of a 3500+ running at 2.2ghz with 512k cache.
This example is for games only tho, other applications it varies.
I also believe encoding gets a slight increase from extra cache aswell.
The extra cache usually makes up for 1 speed grade
Example.
Opteron 146 which runs at 2.0ghz and has a 1mb cache. will usually equal the performance of a 3500+ running at 2.2ghz with 512k cache.
This example is for games only tho, other applications it varies.
I also believe encoding gets a slight increase from extra cache aswell.
It sounds as though that whatever improvement would be found with games, would be somewhat marginal. And that I would likely not need to pay extra for something that I might not perceive the change. Although I am considering upgrading my video card (currently, Geforce 6200), I will not buy a top line card. I was considering a Geforce 7600 that I saw on sale locally. But even with it, I doubt that it would push the processor that much.
loafbred
Senior member
- May 7, 2000
- 836
- 58
- 91
You can compare the various cpu models using this CPU charts. The Quake4 benchmark is probably one of the better indicators of what to expect with optimized software. I narrowed my choice down to X2 4600+ and Opteron 180, and went with the Opteron in hopes of getting a better overclock along with 2mb L2 cache. My Opteron would do pretty well *IF* I could keep the temp down ~50*. It's stable at 2.6, running two instances of Prime 95 "large FFT", at 55*C using a Thermalright Ultra 90 cooler. I would recommend the retail X2 4600+ for $232, shipped, at NewEgg.
Go with the 4400 and get the 89watt one.
That's prettey much the consences at my post
here
You should be able to overclock it to 2.4 without any problems.
FYI about the CPU charts from TomsHardware. I really recommend that you play around with it and all the tests it offers. There are some tests that a X2 4000 out does the x2 4800 :Q so it really depends on what your going to do with the your computer, however I don't think you can go wrong with the 4400. 1x1MB cache and the 89watt chips are easy to overclock more so than the 110 watt version.
Pay no attention to the quad core hype. Right now that's all it is "hype". AMD plans on gearing 4x4 tech to gamers yet games will never take advantage of 4 cores. It's hard enough to have a game run on 2 cores and the industy has stated it will not do 4 core gaming anytime soon.
Upgrading to a 4400 should last you another year(I hope because that's what I'm doing)
The thing that may hold you back is DX10 which only runs on Vista. I'm hopping the game industry won't require DX10 for at least a year. Vista will never touch this machine and I'll only consider getting it with a new build.
That's prettey much the consences at my post
here
You should be able to overclock it to 2.4 without any problems.
FYI about the CPU charts from TomsHardware. I really recommend that you play around with it and all the tests it offers. There are some tests that a X2 4000 out does the x2 4800 :Q so it really depends on what your going to do with the your computer, however I don't think you can go wrong with the 4400. 1x1MB cache and the 89watt chips are easy to overclock more so than the 110 watt version.
Pay no attention to the quad core hype. Right now that's all it is "hype". AMD plans on gearing 4x4 tech to gamers yet games will never take advantage of 4 cores. It's hard enough to have a game run on 2 cores and the industy has stated it will not do 4 core gaming anytime soon.
Upgrading to a 4400 should last you another year(I hope because that's what I'm doing)
The thing that may hold you back is DX10 which only runs on Vista. I'm hopping the game industry won't require DX10 for at least a year. Vista will never touch this machine and I'll only consider getting it with a new build.
AgentJean,
Your post is fortunately timed. Since I found that the 4200 had crept up in price somewhat, I started looking again at the 4400s at Newegg. I was about to post a question, because I was confused about there being two different versions of the 4400, yet both have the same AMD part number. The only difference that I could find was that one specifically mentioned the 89 Watts, had a different Newegg item number and of course, a higher price. But it is only about 50 dollars higher than the 4200, 35 dollars for the other version...decisions, decisions. What is the wattage of the cheaper one?
EDIT: Oops! you already answer that question.
Your post is fortunately timed. Since I found that the 4200 had crept up in price somewhat, I started looking again at the 4400s at Newegg. I was about to post a question, because I was confused about there being two different versions of the 4400, yet both have the same AMD part number. The only difference that I could find was that one specifically mentioned the 89 Watts, had a different Newegg item number and of course, a higher price. But it is only about 50 dollars higher than the 4200, 35 dollars for the other version...decisions, decisions. What is the wattage of the cheaper one?
EDIT: Oops! you already answer that question.
Something that I have been wondering about...can you direct which programs use one core or the other? Like always having games play on one, and everything else on the other?
yeah in task manager you can set one core to run one app and the other for another app, but it gets annoying setting it after a while. I don't know if you can set games to just run on one all the time and leave the other open for other stuff.
the 4400 is the best processor for the buck, charts show as part of your price/performance ratio in regards with heat generation as well.
don't be fooled, however, because the X2 3800 is also a quite fast processor. but you gotta consider... the slowest Core 2 on OC will outmatch a lot of X2 processors?
build from scratch? Core2, it's common sense.
don't be fooled, however, because the X2 3800 is also a quite fast processor. but you gotta consider... the slowest Core 2 on OC will outmatch a lot of X2 processors?
build from scratch? Core2, it's common sense.
I'm quite sure that you are right, but the problem is that I never had much luck with Intel processors in the past, and I never cared for the idea that they had an electronic serial number, that could be turned on remotely, even when you set it to off. Plus, some people would say that I'm short of common sense anyway. X2 will hold me until AMD comes out with something better...maybe their quadcores.
you remind me of Dell. time to grow up and learn how to accept reality. even Dell has taken the innitiative to go AMD on their systems.
but if you think about it, you are still going to get blazing performnce from an X2 or Core2, just depends on your choice of how well you can magnify logic with processors and the resources available to you, not to mention research and ability to comprehend.
First you chide me to use Core2, then you compare me to Dell, for being stubborn in not using AMD. If I lack comprenhension about processors or logic, it is only in regards to understanding what you say about them. As I said before, I have AMD, and I'm going to stay AMD, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about it.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Interesting numbers. Most of them were fairly straight forward, but I still don't quite understand exactly how they derived the relative price column. Unfortunately, the one processor that I'm interested in, is the one increasing most. At the current rate, it won't be long before the 4800 is as cheap as the 4400.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter