PDA

View Full Version : Help me decide between Athlon64 X2


wollyka
01-24-06, 08:02 AM
Hi
I want to upgrade my cpu from a A64 3000+ to one on the dual core amds..
and i have trouble deciding which one :), i use my pc mainly (80%) for gaming..
The prices of the Athlon64 X2 are (in my country they are quite expensive):
ATHLON64 4400 DUAL CORE BOX 634$
ATHLON64 4200 DUAL CORE BOX 527$
ATHLON64 FX60 ADAFX60CDBOX 1359$

The FX60 is out of my budget and i can't afford it ( even if it is the best):so i must decide between the 4200+ or 4400+ (no 4600+ or 4800+ available for now)
My question:does the 1mb more cache justify the price difference between the 4200+ and 4400+(especially for gaming)?should i get the 4400+ coz it had more cache and will this 1mb cache be usefull in games? i am not planning for OC
Thanks

Superfly
01-24-06, 09:09 AM
get the 4400 - otherwise its gonna be too slow IMO

PaiN
01-24-06, 10:57 AM
The 4400+ gives you dual 1mb L2 caches and should easily overclock to 2.6ghz......then you have an FX60 for half the price :D
Even if you don't OC the 4400+ is no slouch and will serve you well.

Riptide
01-24-06, 11:19 AM
I don't think it's worth the extra. That extra cache effects performance, especially in games, pretty minimally. As in less than 5% increase in overall performance.

It can also have an effect on overclockability due to the higher transistor count and increase in heat and power draw.

wollyka
01-24-06, 12:31 PM
2 for the 4400+
1 for 4200+
C'mon guys keep them coming and thx for your help :)
i love the idea of the FX60 for 1/2 price lol

TierMann
01-24-06, 05:33 PM
Thems some high prices...
The 4400 X2 is $470 at newegg right now :(
I guess you're limited on where you can buy from though, huh?
Anyway, I still say the 4400. You can't put a price tag on more e-pen0s.

wollyka
01-24-06, 05:59 PM
i really wish that newegg starts shipping internationally! living in the middle east really cut our options a lot! lol

DansFace
01-24-06, 06:04 PM
opteron!

superklye
01-24-06, 07:29 PM
I say either the 3800 or the 4400. If you have to have that 1MB/core of L2, get the 4400 and OC...otherwise get the 3800, which is exactly the same as the 4200, just 200MHz slower and like $80 cheaper.

wollyka
01-24-06, 08:06 PM
it seems like the 4400+ have more votes :) i am tempted now lol

Riptide
01-24-06, 09:44 PM
One of the biggest mistakes I ever made was going with an FX53 over a 3800+. The only difference between the two was the cache size. After the purchase I read some reviews and found that the performance differential in games was on the order of, I kid you not, 3%. Is that even worth $50? Not in my book. Hell no.

SH64
01-25-06, 01:54 AM
Yep! get the 4400+

KickAssCop
01-25-06, 02:03 AM
I say either the 3800 or the 4400. If you have to have that 1MB/core of L2, get the 4400 and OC...otherwise get the 3800, which is exactly the same as the 4200, just 200MHz slower and like $80 cheaper.
What this man said. 512k = 3800+ and 1 mb = 4400+.

wollyka
01-25-06, 10:43 AM
Thx for the replies

ViN86
01-25-06, 12:13 PM
i vote for the 4200+, i agree with riptide. thats why i went with a 3800. if/when i get a new mobo, i should be able to OC this beast some more.

i had my 3800 runnin at 2.5GHz (mobo couldnt handle it...) and i was benching higher scores than the 4800. so, if you want to OC, get a 4200 or 3800, the extra cache wont really be noticeable.