Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon 64 X2 4400 vs Conroe E6600

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • AMD
  • Systems
  • Product
Last response: in Systems
Share
July 27, 2006 4:35:58 AM

ASUS A8N5X Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 ATX AMD Motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice 2000MHz HT Socket 939 Processor
eVGA 256-P2-N516 Geforce 7800GT CO SE 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16
2GB PC3200 DDR Dual Channel
2x 100GB WD SATA HD

Blah blah blah stock cooling.

The processor I have right now comes stock at 1.8GHZ and I overclocked it to 2.4GHZ on stock air cooling with no temperature gain at all, and no difference between stock and overclocked on full load either.

Now I put together this rig about 4 months ago like a week before 7900's came out( got my 7800 for 259.99 and now they dont even sell them except from the eVGA site for 450$+)

I plan on upgrading my processor now that AMD dropped their prices and i'm looking into the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103546 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo, and the Toledo being becuase it has 2x 1MB L2 cache for a total of 2Mb's of L2 cache as opposed to 2x 512kb for a total of 1Mb L2. The price on the 4400 is now only $259 bucks, where the Conroe E6600 will be debuting at around $320ish MSRP (expect it to be a little higher than MSRP, probably $350)

Now heres the question.

Should I upgrade to the 4400+, which would only cost me the price of the processor + shipping, or go for the E6600, and have to get a whole new motherboard and have to buy 2gb of DDR2 ram (minimum $180 bucks probably for a half decent motherboard with good chipset, and $180 for the ram).

Anyone have some comparisons between these two processors? I know the E6600 is highly overclockable up to 4ghz but has locked multipliers and sports 4MB l2 cache, but would it honestly be worth $700+ bucks?

More about : athlon 4400 conroe e6600

July 27, 2006 4:45:17 AM

the e6600 knocks out x2 4400... As seen here. If you want the amd processor that matches e6600, then you are going to spend 900 on fx62. The downsides to conroe is what you stated, new hardware that ain't cheap and supply is not yet avaliable. If you insist in reusing your 939 board, then the x2 aren't bad especially after the price drops. For some reason, the x2 4600 goes for 270... If you plan to upgrade in near future, spend moderately and save up for conroe.
July 27, 2006 5:08:08 AM

Quote:
the e6600 knocks out x2 4400... As seen here. If you want the amd processor that matches e6600, then you are going to spend 900 on fx62. The downsides to conroe is what you stated, new hardware that ain't cheap and supply is not yet avaliable. If you insist in reusing your 939 board, then the x2 aren't bad especially after the price drops. For some reason, the x2 4600 goes for 270... If you plan to upgrade in near future, spend moderately and save up for conroe.

Hrm.. the comparison you showed does not list ANY of the Toledo X2's except for the FX-62.

I'd like to see the Toledo 4400 against the E6600, the Toledo version has twice as much L2 cache, probably won't make THAT much of a difference, but none of the processors showing against the Conroe cores had moret han 1mb L2 cache where as the Conroes had 4mbs.
Related resources
July 27, 2006 5:35:30 AM

Quote:
The processor I have right now comes stock at 1.8GHZ and I overclocked it to 2.4GHZ on stock air cooling with no temperature gain at all, and no difference between stock and overclocked on full load either


....First of all, I'd upgrade the BIOS or use a third party software to check the temperatures again because that is just not possible..something is wrong!

At the moment with room temperatures of 32C, my OCed 3200+ (270 x 10@1.425V) is idling at 38C and 43C load with water cooling. Even if you dont add voltage to your OC, just the faster processing speed should give off more heat alone!!

On to your question, I'd get the 3800x2 instead of 4200x2, 4400x2, 4600x2 or any of the Conroes, unless they are having a giveaway this Sunday!!

Sure in benchmark scoring, all those CPUs will out pace a 3800x2 but in real world tasks, you'd be talking about couple of seconds or couple of minutes tops!!..................unless your machine runs SUPER-PI 24/7 then yes, Conroe is your savior!!

If you're buying a brand new system, I'd suggest getting a Conroe machine. Since you're upgrading, spending $150 or so and get a 3800x2 that will put you in the vicinity of a dual core performance system plus a little bit of overclocking.......4400x2 performance is easily reached (only 200mhz more than a 3800x2).

3800X2......is my vote
July 27, 2006 5:47:29 AM

Well, I guess I kinda forgot about my " stock " cooling isnt really stock cooling. I have had it like this for years so i tend to forget, I have my case cover off and a window fan blowing into it. It runs a 32c idle and around 41c load like when i'm running Battlefield 2 or something, I OC'd it and it still runs the same exact temperatures. I've used multiple temperature readers and its always the same. Maybe 1-2c variance every now and then depending on the weather.

Now the 3800 over the 4400, reason being the 4400 is because I believe its the lowest at which you can buy a 2MB l2 cache amd Dual core, if I could find a 3800 with a 2mb l2 cache dual core i'd probably go for it.

now you can get a 4000 but its about 130 dollars more and its only socket AM2, which requires upgrading to DDR2 as well.
July 27, 2006 5:53:50 AM

With the AMD~CPU design, the extra L2 cache arent as useful as they are on Intel CPUs.

Agreed that in some applications you do see some small performance gains but thats about it........I believe its multimedia procesing where you see the very minor performance gains

As for gaming, its all about processing speed! As you can still see be it single or dual core, the faster clocked CPUs is right up there with some of the best of them in gaming benchmarks!

The 3800x2 is more OCable than 4400x2 generally as well~~~
July 27, 2006 5:59:57 AM

Whilst the E6600 stomps all over the X2 4400 that isn't a justification to buy half a new system to get it at the moment.

I would get a 939 X2 4600+ (nice and cheap now) and if you still have some money to spend, get an X1900XT or a 7900GT. You'll be upgrading cheaply, and maximising the use out of your 939 platform.
July 27, 2006 6:20:14 AM

Quote:
Whilst the E6600 stomps all over the X2 4400 that isn't a justification to buy half a new system to get it at the moment.

I would get a 939 X2 4600+ (nice and cheap now) and if you still have some money to spend, get an X1900XT or a 7900GT. You'll be upgrading cheaply, and maximising the use out of your 939 platform.


I don't think I'll be spending 260+ bucks to get 1-2 more FPS over my 7800 .. thanks though..
July 27, 2006 6:24:06 AM

Quote:
With the AMD~CPU design, the extra L2 cache arent as useful as they are on Intel CPUs.

Agreed that in some applications you do see some small performance gains but thats about it........I believe its multimedia procesing where you see the very minor performance gains

As for gaming, its all about processing speed! As you can still see be it single or dual core, the faster clocked CPUs is right up there with some of the best of them in gaming benchmarks!

The 3800x2 is more OCable than 4400x2 generally as well~~~


All I know is upgrading from my P4 OC'd at 2.6 GHZ from 2.0 to my Athlon 64 OC'd at 2.4ghz from 1.8, theres a huge difference in performance with less processor speed.

I think its more about processing power than processing speed. Thats where AMD used to rule the benchmarks, with their power, as they have always been known to rarely clock their CPU's over 2.4 ghz
July 27, 2006 6:33:12 AM

Vindicoth,

In your position, if I could sell the motherboard, CPU and memory for $300 or more I'd consider upgrading. Otherwise I'd just get one of the AMD X2 chips.

A good motherboard, memory and a Conroe CPU will run you about $700. If you can get $300 or more for your current setup, that means the upgrade will have cost you $400 or less. Not too bad.

One potentially important tidbit of info is found in this Anandtech article, http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280... They show that a lowly E6300 overclocks so well that in most benchmarks it beats an FX-62. The E6300 should retail (if available!) for around $200. They overclocked it with *stock* cooling (Intel's bundled fan).
July 27, 2006 6:46:55 AM

Quote:
Vindicoth,

In your position, if I could sell the motherboard, CPU and memory for $300 or more I'd consider upgrading. Otherwise I'd just get one of the AMD X2 chips.

A good motherboard, memory and a Conroe CPU will run you about $700. If you can get $300 or more for your current setup, that means the upgrade will have cost you $400 or less. Not too bad.

One potentially important tidbit of info is found in this Anandtech article, http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280... They show that a lowly E6300 overclocks so well that in most benchmarks it beats an FX-62. The E6300 should retail (if available!) for around $200. They overclocked it with *stock* cooling (Intel's bundled fan).


Yeah.. though I doubt selling the parts is an option, anyone building a PC is going for newer, the parts I bought just 4 months ago are already getting outdated and are worth half as much as I paid for them.

I think I'll just get an X2 processor just to be ready for any dual core games coming out, and then when AMD and Intel both have their 65nm CPU's out on the market, make my decision then. Plus by then Quad Core will be out and their Dual core solutions will probably have dropped consierably in price.
July 28, 2006 3:36:08 AM

Quote:
With the AMD~CPU design, the extra L2 cache arent as useful as they are on Intel CPUs.

Agreed that in some applications you do see some small performance gains but thats about it........I believe its multimedia procesing where you see the very minor performance gains

As for gaming, its all about processing speed! As you can still see be it single or dual core, the faster clocked CPUs is right up there with some of the best of them in gaming benchmarks!

The 3800x2 is more OCable than 4400x2 generally as well~~~


All I know is upgrading from my P4 OC'd at 2.6 GHZ from 2.0 to my Athlon 64 OC'd at 2.4ghz from 1.8, theres a huge difference in performance with less processor speed.

I think its more about processing power than processing speed. Thats where AMD used to rule the benchmarks, with their power, as they have always been known to rarely clock their CPU's over 2.4 ghz

I see where you're getting at as AMD and Intel CPU speeds are not comparable and hence the rating system on AMD CPU naming!!

So you're not going to OC with this dual core you're getting??
I must admit 4400+ is attractive being the lowest clocked AMD CPU with 2 x 1MB L2 cache. I too, thought about upgrading to that as well but am leaning towards a 3800x2 at the moment!
!