Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4600+/4800+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 18, 2006 7:52:14 PM

Is there any real huge difference between the AMD 4600+ and the 4800+? Yeah, I know about the cache difference, but does that really affect speed that much? Is an extra $70 worth it for the 4800+?

More about : 4600 4800

March 18, 2006 8:38:46 PM

Quote:
Is an extra $70 worth it for the 4800+?


That's a question you're going to have to answer yourself. What is the computer used for? How critical is performance...stuff like that.

Performance is a relative thing: if you use a PC to browse the 'net and play solitaire anything above a lowly Sempron isn't worth it.
March 18, 2006 8:39:27 PM

Quote:
Is there any real huge difference between the AMD 4600+ and the 4800+? Yeah, I know about the cache difference, but does that really affect speed that much? Is an extra $70 worth it for the 4800+?
IMO, bragging rights is all your get for that extra $70. I just don't believe anyone could tell the difference in any performance test unless two identical machines were sitting right next to each other - and only then if you didn't blink.

If it were me, and the $70 was burning a hole in my pocket, I would put it toward more or better RAM, or a faster video card - or even towards a bigger, faster, better, monitor. If all that was good already, then better (quieter) case fans, or power supply. If all that was good, then I guess I would have to pick up my buddy Jack Daniels and my Old Granddad and celebrate having a great PC. :wink:
Related resources
March 18, 2006 8:40:31 PM

In my opinion, both the 4600+ and 4800+ are poor choices. Go for the 4400+, it is 200MHZ slower than the 4800/4600 but it has the full 1MB cache per core. The performance difference between the 4600 and 4400 is practically non existant, with teh 4400 taking the lead in a few cases.

Additionally, you should easily be able to oc the 4400 to 4800 speeds - if your that way inclined - and its about 20% cheaper (i thnk) than the 4800.
March 18, 2006 10:19:14 PM

I agree with Bill_Bright on this one. If you have the extra money laying around, go ahead and get the faster one. Otherwise, it isn't worth spending it.
March 18, 2006 11:11:06 PM

there is no difference between the two beyond cache as you know and cache dont make a lick of difference unless you are compiling code or something like that. even serious gaming isnt going to take advantage of the cache. i would be inclined to agree though, that if you really want the 1mb cache to go with the 4400+ and overclock, the extra money is never worth it.

MSI K8N Neo-2
AMD X2 4200+
evga 6800gt
2gb (4x512mb) crucial ballistix
March 18, 2006 11:28:43 PM

that kinda money is better spent on an opty, get a 165 or 170. You'll get better preformance
March 19, 2006 3:17:28 PM

Quote:
that kinda money is better spent on an opty, get a 165 or 170. You'll get better preformance


Better performance with an Opty 165 or 170? How do you figure? Opty 175 = X2 4400.
March 19, 2006 3:21:09 PM

Because for ~325, you can get an opty 165 and overclock it to perform much like an FX60 which costs 1000 bucks. That is, as long as your lucky and get a good chip. Usualy, most people get a good overclock out of the 165. You get the most bang for your buck this way. Even at stock speeds, the 165 is a very good performer.
March 19, 2006 3:33:22 PM

Quote:
Because for ~325, you can get an opty 165 and overclock it to perform much like an FX60 which costs 1000 bucks. That is, as long as your lucky and get a good chip. Usualy, most people get a good overclock out of the 165. You get the most bang for your buck this way. Even at stock speeds, the 165 is a very good performer.


The subject was regarding the 2.4GHz 4600 VS 4800. While the 4600 only has 512KB of L2 cache per core, it will run rings around a 1.8GHz Opty 165.

While overclocking is a possibility and better performance might be obtained, "You'll get better performance with an Opty 165" isn't necessarily correct. Not everybody overclocks.

The Opteron 165 is an awesome CPU so please don't get me wrong. There just isn't any guarantee than an Opty 165 is better than an X2 4600 or 4800 regarding performance and when run at stock speeds, the 4600/4800 are guaranteed to outperform an Opty 165 through 175.
March 19, 2006 3:46:24 PM

Additionally, OCing will void the warranty if damage can be attributed to it. It increases demands on cooling - an overheated CPU can destroy the CPU socket, destroying the motherboard - and that will not be covered by warranty either. I never recommend OC for those reasons. Not to mention, if you have ANY important information on that PC, you risk losing it, or at least use of that PC for awhile.

I am back to my original suggestions - if you have extra cash, the best place to put it is in RAM or better video.
March 19, 2006 3:46:49 PM

lets not get him more confused in workstation processors
March 19, 2006 4:02:57 PM

Well, I do agree with the fact that not everybody overclocks. If everybody posted exactly what their intentions are when buying a chip, it would certainly narrow these things down. There's no telling if this guy plans to overclock or not but we'll leave it at that.

Now, when I say you can take an Opteron 165 and overclock it to FX60 speeds, that's incredible value IMO. Your right, not everybody overclocks and not every opteron 165 would overclock that high. When you look at the value of money, it's very hard to pass up such a value and the opteron is engineered to higher standards than the X2 counterparts are. In other words, they're made a little better.

Yes, the opteron is a server chip but let me say this much, you put a stock 4400 or 4800 next to my machine, my opty will certainly run circles around em. :wink:
March 19, 2006 4:12:56 PM

Actually the engineering of an Opty and X2 is exactly the same core VS core (Toledo for example (there are no Manchester core Opterons)). The only difference is in the testing. They come from the same piece of silicon and are made at the same time. Opty's are more rigorously tested. There are no other differences.
March 20, 2006 1:28:35 AM

From what I've seen, it's really not worth it. Unless you just want to spend the extra cash for the faster one, you wouldn't see that much of a difference.
March 20, 2006 4:03:44 AM

The difference is about $11.67 per month.
The 4800 will last the average user 6 months longer than a 4600.
For those last 6 months, it will cost you that much per month.
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2006 11:32:14 AM

" Is an extra $70 worth it for the 4800+?
"

For games, no...

Having what is essentially a pair of 3800+ processors (2.4G/512k cache for an X2-4600) is more than adequate....

At high res (1280x1024/4xAA), yet another 200-400 more MHz available by an FX60 ($1000+) will result in a typical net gain of about 1-2 frame per second in games such as FEAR, COD2, etc; you are much better putting that money into a better video card, beginning with a 7900GT!
!