View Full Version : X2 4400 or 3800??

08-15-05, 10:57 AM
Going to upgrade processor for an A8N-SLI, 2x 1GB Corsair, 7800GTX.

Which processor would you choose:

X2-4400 1MB cache 2.2Ghz


X2-3800 512 cache 2.0Ghz.

Don't know if the extra $ is worth the cache or if I can OC'd the 3800 further than the 4400 (different core). Which way would you go??? TIA.

08-15-05, 11:29 AM
Definitely get the more cache. You can always OC, you can't add cache.

08-15-05, 11:43 AM
Yup go with the 4400+

08-15-05, 11:48 AM
Agreed with everyone, the 4400+ has far more potential if you can afford it. Tap that overclockable mother :D

08-15-05, 12:19 PM
My question would be that I have read that the Manchester Core (3800) will OC much higher due to the lower power requirement than the Toledo (4400). I like the additional cache of the Toledo, but am fearfull that the 3800 will go higher (2.6-2.8ghz) and thus better performance for $150 less purchase price. I'm I incorrect?

08-15-05, 12:44 PM
4200+. The cache is not worth the extra money IMO. 4200+ is the same clock as the 4400, very little performance difference because of the cache, and it's cheaper. Plus the 4200 should o/c better than the 4400 due to having less L2 cache.

08-15-05, 12:45 PM
From the reviews I read the X2 3800 can reach 2.4 pretty easy and 2.5 in some cases. I'm working on a purchase with a 7800 GT.

08-16-05, 09:19 AM
If you want to save money the X2 3800+ is not a bad buy at all. As a matter of fact IMO it's a great buy. It does do very well when OCed, from what I have been hearing.

I got the X2 4400 myself because I like the extra cache too, and as I understand it the other chips are failed 4400|4800s. That doesn't mean they aren't doing well though.

Here's an overclocked X2 3800+ at Techreport:


08-16-05, 10:54 AM
Great article, thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.