AMD 64 X2 4200 or 4400?

Hi all,

I plan on ordering either the AMD X2 4200 or the 4400.

There is about a 100 dollar difference in the price at Newegg, obviously due
to the 4400 having the larger L2 cache ( 1mb per core versus 512 kb per core
on the 4200).
Both are listed as 2.2 ghz processors.

I use my computer mainly for regular home processing, ie quicken, word docs,
etc, and do a good bit of gaming. I do some video encoding as well, not a
lot, I might encode 1-2 dvd's per month.

In y'all's opinion, is the extra L2 cache worth the 100 bucks difference in
price?

I also like to overclock my system, so would be interestested in whether one
might overclock better than the other.


Thanks for any feedback,


Don

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:13:04 -0600, Don Burnette wrote:

Hi all,

I plan on ordering either the AMD X2 4200 or the 4400.

There is about a 100 dollar difference in the price at Newegg, obviously
due to the 4400 having the larger L2 cache ( 1mb per core versus 512 kb
per core on the 4200).
Both are listed as 2.2 ghz processors.

I use my computer mainly for regular home processing, ie quicken, word
docs, etc, and do a good bit of gaming. I do some video encoding as
well, not a lot, I might encode 1-2 dvd's per month.

In y'all's opinion, is the extra L2 cache worth the 100 bucks
difference in price?

I also like to overclock my system, so would be interestested in whether
one might overclock better than the other.


Thanks for any feedback,


Don

It depends on the application. I have a number of A64 systems including a
4400+. In the case of NCVerilog I see a two to one difference in
performance between my 1M cache machines and my 1/2M cache machine.
However for all of the other applications that I've looked at the
difference is much smaller, about 10%. You aren't doing anything that's
very demanding so you'll probably be happy with any A64. If price is a
concern then get the X2 3800+, it's the cheapest of the dual cores and the
performance difference between it and the higher priced 1/2M cache parts
is negligible. If you aren't price sensitive and you think that you might
be doing some computationally intensive work then get the X2 4400+.

The choice should be 4400 or 3800. But for what you state you want to
do,
get the 3800 and run it at 2.4Ghz. It will easily overcome the
difference
between having the extra cache and not.
My 3800+ X2 running at 240x10 idles at 37C with 1.36v on stock cooling.

Since you "do a good bit of gaming" and "video encoding" I recommend getting
the 4400.
Another way to think of this is once you have the CPU, which one would you
be more likely to regret not buying the other?
I think any time you are trying to decide between a lower end and a higher
end model, regret occurs more often when you bought the lower end model.
Unless the $100 means you don't eat for a week

--
Scotter

"Don Burnette" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I plan on ordering either the AMD X2 4200 or the 4400.

There is about a 100 dollar difference in the price at Newegg, obviously
due to the 4400 having the larger L2 cache ( 1mb per core versus 512 kb
per core on the 4200).
Both are listed as 2.2 ghz processors.

I use my computer mainly for regular home processing, ie quicken, word
docs, etc, and do a good bit of gaming. I do some video encoding as well,
not a lot, I might encode 1-2 dvd's per month.

In y'all's opinion, is the extra L2 cache worth the 100 bucks difference
in price?

I also like to overclock my system, so would be interestested in whether
one might overclock better than the other.


Thanks for any feedback,


Don

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:13:04 -0600, Don Burnette wrote:

I plan on ordering either the AMD X2 4200 or the 4400.
There is about a 100 dollar difference in the price at Newegg, obviously due
to the 4400 having the larger L2 cache ( 1mb per core versus 512 kb per core
on the 4200). Both are listed as 2.2 ghz processors.
I use my computer mainly for regular home processing, ie quicken, word docs,
etc, and do a good bit of gaming. I do some video encoding as well, not a
lot, I might encode 1-2 dvd's per month.
In y'all's opinion, is the extra L2 cache worth the 100 bucks difference in
price?

It's not IMO. You be the judge.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=235&chart=74

I also like to overclock my system, so would be interestested in whether
one might overclock better than the other.

There shouldn't be much difference in OC potential.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

According to AMD's website, there is only a 2.5% difference in performance
between a 4200 and a 4400. So is the $100 worth it? I guess you'll have to
decide.

Go to www.amd.com then "Processors", "AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core" and then
"Benchmarks" and see for yourself.

"VanShania" wrote in message
...
According to AMD's website, there is only a 2.5% difference in performance
between a 4200 and a 4400. So is the $100 worth it? I guess you'll have to
decide.

Go to www.amd.com then "Processors", "AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core" and then
"Benchmarks" and see for yourself.

I've got the 4400x2 @ 2.6 stable at 1.4v - great CPU with the Toledo
core....

FYI - a 4400+ will get you ZERO performance increase in overall usage,
3d rendering and encoding. gaming, a small increase... i havn't tested
games with this though but from what i've read its around 5% average, as
others have said i guess its up to you if its worth it

i have a 4200+ and wouldn't trade it for anything else, its got a nice
multiplier to work with and its closer to the 3800+ price-wise.

Don Burnette wrote:
Hi all,

I plan on ordering either the AMD X2 4200 or the 4400.

oh - something i forgot to add when doing the hard sell for the 4200+,
its the fast stock cpu at 89W, all higher models are 110W, heh probably
doesn't mean a lot but i like lower powered cpus

Don Burnette wrote:

In y'all's opinion, is the extra L2 cache worth the 100 bucks difference
in price?

Another thing to consider is when and if you upgrade to a 64 bit operating
system, will the 512MB cache then be equivalent to what is not 256MB?!

How about an Opteron CPU that runs on Socket 939? The 170 has 1MB
L2, a 10 multiplier (2GHz), and sells for about the same price as the X2
4200+. It is said among the "enthusiasts" that the Opterons overclock better.