Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Dual Core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 5, 2006 10:09:13 PM

I'm doing a budget system and thinking of going with the socket 939 because I save $250CAN on RAM. I have 2gb of PC3200 ddr RAM. Would that work alright in a 939? Here is my build--all prices in CAN.

$99 Asus A8N5X S939 nForce4 Chipset 1PCI-Ex16/3+2+1PCI/4DDR,
w/Sound GB-Lan SATA Raid
$279 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Dual Core 1000HT 512Kx2
$133 ATI Rad. X1600 Pro 256MB PCI-E Sapphire
$119 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB 16MB SATAII
$19 400W ATX12V PS w/+12VDC 4pin Connector
$29 17" (2750) Black ATX w/NO PS

$678


I plan to purchase a half decent DX10card when they come out.
As well, I opted for the 4400+ instead of the 4600 because it has a greater cache. On the stock fan, would that CPU overclock to 2.4ghz fine without overheating or any damage? With Zalmann, how high could I raise CPU before requiring liquid cooling? I would keep it stock for time being and raise up when Crysis comes out, a game that's forsure to be a hardware killer.

More about : athlon 4400 dual core

August 5, 2006 10:17:02 PM

Quote:
I'm doing a budget system and thinking of going with the socket 939 because I save $250CAN on RAM. I have 2gb of PC3200 ddr RAM. Would that work alright in a 939? Here is my build--all prices in CAN.

$99 Asus A8N5X S939 nForce4 Chipset 1PCI-Ex16/3+2+1PCI/4DDR,
w/Sound GB-Lan SATA Raid
$279 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Dual Core 1000HT 512Kx2
$133 ATI Rad. X1600 Pro 256MB PCI-E Sapphire
$119 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB 16MB SATAII
$19 400W ATX12V PS w/+12VDC 4pin Connector
$29 17" (2750) Black ATX w/NO PS

$678


I plan to purchase a half decent DX10card when they come out.
As well, I opted for the 4400+ instead of the 4600 because it has a greater cache. On the stock fan, would that CPU overclock to 2.4ghz fine without overheating or any damage? With Zalmann, how high could I raise CPU before requiring liquid cooling? I would keep it stock for time being and raise up when Crysis comes out, a game that's forsure to be a hardware killer.



You're looking good. I got the 4400+ for the same reason. I run my bus at 220MHz with the retail heatsink with no problem. AMD chips are not designed to OC like Intel, but with more voltage and water, you can probably get to 3GHz.

Crysis is 64 bit so it should actually be a step up in perf.
August 5, 2006 10:43:50 PM

Quote:


I plan to purchase a half decent DX10card when they come out.


Umm .... I'm not sure this is a good idea.
DX10 standard itself hasn't come out yet , the hardware that .......
Instead of "waiting" for DX10 card , I would wait for an actual "new" card/gpu. And holding your breath for the former might actually be more tiring than for the latter.
Related resources
August 5, 2006 10:55:10 PM

Quote:


I plan to purchase a half decent DX10card when they come out.


Umm .... I'm not sure this is a good idea.
DX10 standard itself hasn't come out yet , the hardware that .......
Instead of "waiting" for DX10 card , I would wait for an actual "new" card/gpu. And holding your breath for the former might actually be more tiring than for the latter.

I can sort of agree with this. If you need it now it makes sense to buy a decent DX9 card now and then change to a DX10 once they are fully released.

But if you're buying a full system now in readiness for DX10, the simple answer is don't. CPU prices will have fallen by the time Vista is eventually released, as will the equivalent cost of all of your hardware.

The interim stopgap will be ATI's first offering with unified shader functionality, which should certainly be ok in DX10 and will roar in DX9. Due around November at last count, and also won't be screwed up by the AMD purchase.
August 5, 2006 11:45:58 PM

If a person is on a $600 budget, they can't get a Conroe. AMD is the champion for under $1000, simple as that.
August 5, 2006 11:50:34 PM

Quote:
If a person is on a $600 budget, they can't get a Conroe. If they do, the 939 will be a better performer because it operates on cheaper RAM and a very cheap $80 nforce4 MB. A Conroe at $600 would be without a video card, and the AMD would be better in games. Conroe is only better once you get over the $900 mark. Under $900 AMD is the clear champion and a 4400+ is still one hell of a fast processor.


At no point in my post did I advocate nor even mention Conroe. Nor any manufacturer infact.

I was looking to answer the post with an unbiased opinion (certainly CPU-wise anyway).

However you clearly have an agenda. I might no disagree with it, but don't accuse me of having one.
August 6, 2006 12:00:38 AM

That wasn't my intention. I was just posting a general comment for anyone. Sorry for the confusion.
How do I post comments on subject that arn't in response to anyone?
August 6, 2006 12:02:27 AM

Like Baron, I have a 4400+ and it overclocks past 2.4 with ease. A very good cpu in my opinion. Sure, the FX cpu's are faster, but I don't think they're worth price for the small extra they provide. There has been no need of watercooling. As for a video card, Newegg shows a Connect3D X1900 XT for $299 after rebate at present. That's a good card for a reasonable amount of money.
August 6, 2006 12:04:45 AM

Quote:
That wasn't my intention. I was just posting a general comment for anyone. Sorry for the confusion.
How do I post comments on subject that arn't in response to anyone?


No probs mate.

You can't AFAIK. If I have a general reply, I make it clear that it isn't in response to anyone.
August 6, 2006 2:42:26 AM

These are the prices of CPU's current today in CAN dollars. I'm looking at either the 4200 or the 4400. I'm just wondering if the $50 more price tag for the 4400 is worth it. Most benchmarks show that both CPU's are very similar. I'm looking towards games such as Crysis and which CPU will be the best performance value for a game like that. Perhaps the higher cache will play a larger difference in future games? Ultimately, I don't want to get a CPU now that will be the bottleneck for games like Crysis, if I could spend $100 more and avoid that problem. I'm not sure, but from the looks of these prices, the 4200 seems to be the best value. Any thoughts?

Athlon 64 X2 Socket 939
$189 Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Dual Core 1000HT 512Kx2
$229 Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Dual Core 1000HT 512Kx2
$279 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Dual Core 1000HT 1MBx2
$299 Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Dual Core 1000HT 512Kx2
$369 Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Dual Core 1000HT 1MBx2
August 6, 2006 2:52:06 AM

if i were you, i would opt for the 4200+ and save some money, or go for it and get the 4600+. the difference between the 2x512kb and 2x1mb cache is very minimal, and definately not worth the price.

as far as overclocking, the 4200+ will go higher than the 4400+ because the smaller cache will have an easier time overclocking. they should both be able to get to 2.42ghz (220x11) very easily (on air and stock voltage) if your ram can handle it.

specifically, i have been able to get my 4200+ (s939) up to 2.53, but it wasnt very stable (on stock voltage of course). since i am not ready to overvolt right now, and i dont really NEED the perfomance, i am satisfied... although i do wish i could get 2.64 out of it!
August 6, 2006 3:59:47 AM

Quote:
These are the prices of CPU's current today in CAN dollars. I'm looking at either the 4200 or the 4400. I'm just wondering if the $50 more price tag for the 4400 is worth it. Most benchmarks show that both CPU's are very similar. I'm looking towards games such as Crysis and which CPU will be the best performance value for a game like that. Perhaps the higher cache will play a larger difference in future games? Ultimately, I don't want to get a CPU now that will be the bottleneck for games like Crysis, if I could spend $100 more and avoid that problem. I'm not sure, but from the looks of these prices, the 4200 seems to be the best value. Any thoughts?

Athlon 64 X2 Socket 939
$189 Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Dual Core 1000HT 512Kx2
$229 Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Dual Core 1000HT 512Kx2
$279 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Dual Core 1000HT 1MBx2
$299 Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Dual Core 1000HT 512Kx2
$369 Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Dual Core 1000HT 1MBx2




I'd say the 4600 would be the best bang without high OC and the 4200 would be best with high OC. I prefer to not OC too much so I would get the 4600+.

Most benches show there isn't that much noticeable difference with the 1MB cache. You actually get a better increase with clockspeed.
August 6, 2006 7:09:43 AM

Quote:
they should both be able to get to 2.42ghz (220x11) very easily (on air and stock voltage) if your ram can handle it.


The ram I'll be using is Samsung PC3200 DDR in 1GB sticks. Will that be able to handle 2.42ghz?
A description of the ram from the sellers page said:
CAS Latency: 4
It also said below that: Programmable CAS Latencies (3, 4 and 5), Burst Length (8 & 4) and Burst Type
Should I avoid this ram--- is it to cheap? It's off of: http://stores.ebay.ca/EMARTBUY-USA
The ram is $55 a GB. Would it benefit me to have 3GB of ram or is 2gb enough?
Lastly--- the MB i'm getting is the Asus A8N5X S939 nForce4 Chipset. Could changing the voltage potentially fry it? From what you said, it looks like I have to increase the voltage to reach 2.6ghz. This is something I probably wouldn't do until a game like C[/quote]rysis comes out and only if I'm not happy with how it plays at high detail settings.
August 6, 2006 7:16:22 AM

If I overclock the 4200 to 2.4ghz, is the risk of damage to the CPU and/or MB negligible in that it's very unlikely for damage to occur?
I'm just thinking that if the risk of damage is basically none, why would people get the 4600 when they could get 4200 for $70CAN less and have the same performance?
August 6, 2006 7:29:03 AM

I've had my 4400 for less than a week and am very impressed, considered the 4800 but it was n't available at the time of purchase. It can be oc'd to the 4800 but I think I'll stay put. I ran two spyware scans, an anti virus, watched mlb. streaming video, surfed the net, and put in a DVD movie all at the same time and the cpu did'nt miss a step. The temperature went up 2 degrees to 43C!
August 6, 2006 11:29:03 AM

Quote:



I'd say the 4600 would be the best bang without high OC and the 4200 would be best with high OC. I prefer to not OC too much so I would get the 4600+.


You don't seem to be too big a fan of OCing Baron , judging form many of your posts.

Quote:

Most benches show there isn't that much noticeable difference with the 1MB cache. You actually get a better increase with clockspeed.


And yet , you chose the bigger cache version for yourself. :wink:
Why is that ??

Just curious .....
August 6, 2006 11:33:04 AM

Quote:



I'd say the 4600 would be the best bang without high OC and the 4200 would be best with high OC. I prefer to not OC too much so I would get the 4600+.


You don't seem to be too big a fan of OCing Baron , judging form many of your posts.

Quote:

Most benches show there isn't that much noticeable difference with the 1MB cache. You actually get a better increase with clockspeed.


And yet , you chose the bigger cache version for yourself. :wink:
Why is that ??

Just curious .....BM is afraid of the BIOS. He's as much as said it a few times before. :?
August 6, 2006 1:27:55 PM

Quote:



I'd say the 4600 would be the best bang without high OC and the 4200 would be best with high OC. I prefer to not OC too much so I would get the 4600+.


You don't seem to be too big a fan of OCing Baron , judging form many of your posts.

Quote:

Most benches show there isn't that much noticeable difference with the 1MB cache. You actually get a better increase with clockspeed.


And yet , you chose the bigger cache version for yourself. :wink:
Why is that ??

Just curious .....

I bought the 1MB cause I could. Not being funny but I wanted the 1MB chip. When I bought it the prices were much higher.
August 6, 2006 7:48:51 PM

Quote:


And yet , you chose the bigger cache version for yourself. :wink:
Why is that ??

Just curious .....


I bought the 1MB cause I could. Not being funny but I wanted the 1MB chip. When I bought it the prices were much higher.


Fair enough. And how do you find the bigger cache so far ?
Has it been worth the extra cash ??
August 6, 2006 9:08:17 PM

I did much the same when I bought my 4400+. The bigger cache does help a little, and in some programs it helps a lot. I bought it more with the idea of future programs in mind then the present stuff. Was it really worth it? Don't know for sure, but I don't think it hurts any. As for overclocking, I think it will overclock just as well or even better than a 4200+, but may take some time to figure out how to do it.
!