Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD X2 3800 vs 4400

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 2, 2006 2:56:16 AM

im building my 1st pc and was wondering about these cpu's. Is there a big difference between the two? Ive seen the benchmark tests but are we talking nanoseconds here or is there a real noticable difference? Ill be using mostly photoshop cs2, flash and dreamweaver 8

More about : amd 3800 4400

August 2, 2006 3:31:26 AM

Quote:
im building my 1st pc and was wondering about these cpu's. Is there a big difference between the two? Ive seen the benchmark tests but are we talking nanoseconds here or is there a real noticable difference? Ill be using mostly photoshop cs2, flash and dreamweaver 8


There is a noticable difference. The 4400 will finish encoding 10-20% faster than the 3800+, games will run smoother, your PS CS2 will be snappier.

Jack

The 4400+ X2 has 1MB of L2 cache for each core where as the 3800+ X2 has only 512KB for each core therefore, some multimedia processes will be more efficient........

The 4400+ X2 will definitely be quicker but it is mainly due to the faster clock speed and a little bit because of the cache.

A 3800+ X2 is at 2GHz and 4400+ X2 is 2.2GHz.......OC a 3800+ X2 to 2.2GHz and benchmark it again to see the difference.....which will be very minor and in real world tasks....you wouldnt notice the difference!!

Even at stock speeds in real world tasks, you'd hardly notice the difference..........

But I understand why you want to get 4400+ X2 though...because of the L2 cache....if its within your budget then get it....

You cant go wrong with either one!!!
August 2, 2006 3:58:26 AM

I have both of the processors, and I can notice the difference! If you are a big gamer and want to multitask I think the 4400 is a good choice. I also think that the 3800 is good also. When the Fx-60 939 socket comes down in price like say 300.00 I will buy that for a upgrade. Anywho if you look towards the end of this year AMD will have out 4x4 which will be able to multi task out the but.
Related resources
August 2, 2006 4:46:50 AM

Quote:
I have both of the processors, and I can notice the difference! If you are a big gamer and want to multitask I think the 4400 is a good choice. I also think that the 3800 is good also. When the Fx-60 939 socket comes down in price like say 300.00 I will buy that for a upgrade. Anywho if you look towards the end of this year AMD will have out 4x4 which will be able to multi task out the but.



I was thinking of going that route but 4x4 at 2.6GHz is too tempting. If I was in upgrade mode I'd probably go with FX60 and double it with 4x4, but I've had enough procs to last anyone. I hate new cases and mobos now.

I'm hoping I can get a 4x4 around XMas, though. I'm at 4400+ 220 HT, but i can wait.
August 2, 2006 5:08:16 AM

It would help if you could give us your total budget and a list of the parts that you already figured out, there is over a hundred dollar difference between the two CPUs while the performance difference would account for more or less 12%.

Given an high enough budget (even then, it would be stretching it), it may be worthwhile to consider a C2D platform, especially if you can afford to wait.
August 2, 2006 5:50:00 AM

The X24400+ is very fast and efficent. It renders just as he said 20% faster than the X23800+. I use it for Photoshop and Maya and it smokes!
August 2, 2006 6:50:07 AM

Quote:
im building my 1st pc and was wondering about these cpu's. Is there a big difference between the two? Ive seen the benchmark tests but are we talking nanoseconds here or is there a real noticable difference? Ill be using mostly photoshop cs2, flash and dreamweaver 8
Don't skimp on the RAM either. Get some decent brand-name with decent timings. GL
August 2, 2006 7:43:05 AM

How a about the 4800+ and the 4600+? is there a noticible performance difference there ?
August 2, 2006 10:32:29 AM

I didn't want to spend more then $1200 - $1500 on this project. I don't mind waitting a little to see what else comes out but I dont want to wait for ever... How much will one of these 4x4's cost? Im guessing it will take me over my budget
August 2, 2006 11:59:58 AM

personally i at the base and work my way out... i usually choose a CORE that i like maybe the windsor core (AM2 socket) that is also used in the FX-62 if you look at newegg.com CPU spec the windsor has "Virtualization Technology Support: Yes" which some new programs like adobe and maya might be able to take advantage of. then i look at stuff like L2 cache. since i am an AMD fan, Speed is nice but we know it isnt all about Speed. this leaves the AM2 64 4000+ or the AM2 64-fx62 but the processors your looking at are the 939 socket,

X2 3800+ (939 socket / Manchester core) 2.0ghz 2x 512kb L2 cache
X2 4400+ (939 socket / Toledo core) 2.2ghz 2x 1mb L2 cache

now you have to ask yourself what is the differences are, they have different cores, L2 cache, clock speed. is that difference worth the extra $100 (+/-)? personally i like the larger L2 caches, but i start with cores then move to features like 1mb or 2mb L2 cache, chip sets / Multimedia Instruction (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3DNOW! Professional) last on my list is speed.
August 2, 2006 1:12:37 PM

Quote:
I didn't want to spend more then $1200 - $1500 on this project. I don't mind waitting a little to see what else comes out but I dont want to wait for ever... How much will one of these 4x4's cost? Im guessing it will take me over my budget


I think that you'll find that the 4600 now costs less than the 4400. The 4400 has twice the L2 cache but runs 200MHz slower than the 4600. Worst case scenario is that in some applications they will be about equal. In other cases the 4600 is clearly the faster of the two. You can't really go wrong with either one aside from the limited upgrade potential with socket 939 (there are no available 4400s for socket AM2 and have been discontinued (EOL'd) on all platforms).

As to your original question, I too have both the 3800 and 4400 (my 4400 is an Opteron 175 (very same thing)). Since the recent price cuts, I now have a 4800 to upgrade my 3800 but haven't installed it yet. However, the 4400 is most definitely quicker than the 3800 and you'll notice this every time you sit at your PC.

If this is a completely new build and not an upgrade, you may be better served by taking a very close look at Intel's Core Duo, especially considering your planned use.
August 2, 2006 8:18:13 PM

thats what Ill probably do, though I am a AMD fan. If I go AMD ill use AM2 socket for sure and probably start with the 4600.. I can always upgrade in the future. price wise I would think the AMD build would be cheaper???? since the dore 2 duo's just came out they cost more
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 119 À AMD
August 2, 2006 11:53:50 PM

Quote:
How a about the 4800+ and the 4600+? is there a noticible performance difference there ?


There will be a small noticeable difference. Before I decided to build a PC around the Conroe, I was comparing those two CPUs. The improvement will be noticable depending on what benchmarks, but I decided to go with the 4600+ because it was cheaper and more power efficient than the 4800+.

Also, the performance increase from the 4400+ to the 4600+ is pretty significant. The increase from 4600+ to 4800+ is there but not as significant.
August 3, 2006 12:23:47 AM

Quote:
thats what Ill probably do, though I am a AMD fan. If I go AMD ill use AM2 socket for sure and probably start with the 4600.. I can always upgrade in the future. price wise I would think the AMD build would be cheaper???? since the dore 2 duo's just came out they cost more


Core Duos cost a bit more and they are quite scarce at this time. Motherboards cost considerably more than those for socket AM2 though you can easily spend as much for either one. DDR2 is simply expensive as compared to DDR. The best bang for your buck with AM2 is gained by spending ~$300 for an AM2 X2 5000 (these are nearly impossible to find as well). The higher clocks on the 5000 help offset the really high latencies of DDR2.

I'm glad that I stuck with socket 939 for now though my next upgrades (in a few years I hope) are gonna cost me big time!
August 3, 2006 2:22:21 AM

what the point in getting the core 2 duo right now and not waiting a year for better and experienced cpus.
August 3, 2006 2:55:02 AM

Quote:
what the point in getting the core 2 duo right now and not waiting a year for better and experienced cpus.


That's something only you can decide. Personally I just bought an X2 4800.

There will always be something faster & better just around the corner. If you're pleased with what you have now, don't do anything. Invest your cash instead.

But if you are looking to build or upgrade, now is a pretty good time to do it. Never before has so much computing power been available to the average consumer and at such awesome prices too!
August 4, 2006 2:44:14 AM

Quote:
I have both of the processors, and I can notice the difference! If you are a big gamer and want to multitask I think the 4400 is a good choice. I also think that the 3800 is good also. When the Fx-60 939 socket comes down in price like say 300.00 I will buy that for a upgrade. Anywho if you look towards the end of this year AMD will have out 4x4 which will be able to multi task out the but.



I was thinking of going that route but 4x4 at 2.6GHz is too tempting. If I was in upgrade mode I'd probably go with FX60 and double it with 4x4, but I've had enough procs to last anyone. I hate new cases and mobos now.

I'm hoping I can get a 4x4 around XMas, though. I'm at 4400+ 220 HT, but i can wait.

Just remember that 4x4 won't be able to use its full potential!!!! Most sofware now can't even use dual core. It might be a waste of money unless software can support it!
!