Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

AMD 4200 vs. AMD 4400

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Gaming
  • Cache
  • AMD
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
August 16, 2006 7:12:09 PM

I am building my own pc. It will mainly be used for gaming. I am trying to decide between the 4200 and 4400. It looks to me that they are the same except for the L2 Cache. The 4200 is 2x512KB and the 4400 is 2x1MB. Is the extra L2 Cache on the 4400 worth the extra $55?

More about : amd 4200 amd 4400

August 16, 2006 7:17:42 PM

Tom has a graph to compare performance.

Perhaps that will help you decide off those 2:

Guide Processors: CPU
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2006 7:36:58 PM

Quote:
I am building my own pc. It will mainly be used for gaming. I am trying to decide between the 4200 and 4400. It looks to me that they are the same except for the L2 Cache. The 4200 is 2x512KB and the 4400 is 2x1MB. Is the extra L2 Cache on the 4400 worth the extra $55?

Do you currently own a motherboard or will you be buying that as well? What about RAM, power supply etc?
August 16, 2006 8:05:03 PM

I will be buying everything this is what I think I'm going to be getting.

Case : Thermaltake Armor Series VA8000BWS Black Aluminum/Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail

Motherboard : ASUS A8N-SLI Premium Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD Motherboard

Video Card : ASUS EAX1900XT/2DHTV/512 Radeon X1900XT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16

Power Supply : Antec TRUEPOWERII TPII-550 ATX12V 550W PSU

Processor : AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo 2000MHz HT 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939 Dual Core Processor - Retail

Memory : CORSAIR XMS 2GB (2 x 1GB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM Unbuffered DDR 400 (PC 3200) Dual Channel Kit

Removable Storage : Sabrent 52-in-1 USB 2.0 Internal Flash Memory Reader/Writer

3.5 Floppy Drive : SONY Black 1.44MB 3.5" Internal Floppy Drive Model MPF920 Black - OEM

Hard Drive : Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

Keyboard Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 B2L-00047 Black 104 Normal Keys 9 Function Keys USB Ergonomic Keyboard

CD-RW/DVD-RW : 2 Lite-on SHW-160P6S04 16x8x16xDVD+RW / 16x6x16xDVD-RW / 48x24x48x CD-RW

Thermal Compound : Zalman ZM - STG1 Thermal Compound - Retail

CPU Cooler : ZALMAN CNPS7000B-Cu LED 2 Ball Blue LED Light Cooling Fan - Retail

Operating System : Microsoft Windows XP Pro w/Service Pack 2 OEM

Surge Protector : Opti-UPS ES1000C 8 Outlet 700 Watt
a b 4 Gaming
August 16, 2006 8:05:29 PM

I don't think the cache size makes that much of a difference in today's games/software. For future-proofing, I'd spend the extra money since AMD is discontinuing the 2x1mb cache on their desktop processors.
August 16, 2006 8:08:11 PM

BTW, I don't intend on overclocking anything.....this one is going to have to last me for a few years...LOL
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2006 8:09:28 PM

Quote:
I will be buying everything this is what I think I'm going to be getting.

Case : Thermaltake Armor Series VA8000BWS Black Aluminum/Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail

Motherboard : ASUS A8N-SLI Premium Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD Motherboard

Video Card : ASUS EAX1900XT/2DHTV/512 Radeon X1900XT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16

Power Supply : Antec TRUEPOWERII TPII-550 ATX12V 550W PSU

Processor : AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo 2000MHz HT 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939 Dual Core Processor - Retail

Memory : CORSAIR XMS 2GB (2 x 1GB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM Unbuffered DDR 400 (PC 3200) Dual Channel Kit

Removable Storage : Sabrent 52-in-1 USB 2.0 Internal Flash Memory Reader/Writer

3.5 Floppy Drive : SONY Black 1.44MB 3.5" Internal Floppy Drive Model MPF920 Black - OEM

Hard Drive : Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM

Keyboard Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 B2L-00047 Black 104 Normal Keys 9 Function Keys USB Ergonomic Keyboard

CD-RW/DVD-RW : 2 Lite-on SHW-160P6S04 16x8x16xDVD+RW / 16x6x16xDVD-RW / 48x24x48x CD-RW

Thermal Compound : Zalman ZM - STG1 Thermal Compound - Retail

CPU Cooler : ZALMAN CNPS7000B-Cu LED 2 Ball Blue LED Light Cooling Fan - Retail

Operating System : Microsoft Windows XP Pro w/Service Pack 2 OEM

Surge Protector : Opti-UPS ES1000C 8 Outlet 700 Watt


May I ask who recommended Socket 939 to you? May I also ask why you chose an AMD system with an nVIDIA SLI board when you're buying an ATi Graphics card?

I would have gotten an Intel x975 based board with a Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13Ghz. It supports Crossfire, is in your price range and would last you longer then socket 939 and offer more performance (E6400 often beats an AMD Athlon FX-62 in games).

Quote:
BTW, I don't intend on overclocking anything.....this one is going to have to last me for a few years...LOL

Then definatly go with the Core 2 Duo setup I just mentioned. For a motherboard you would be best to get the ASUS P5W-DH Deluxe ;) 
August 16, 2006 8:39:21 PM

Why isn't that Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13Ghz on the CPU Chart? At least that way I could compare them.
August 16, 2006 9:08:06 PM

Becuase it was just released. They havn't updated the charts yet.
August 16, 2006 9:46:32 PM

Quote:
BTW, I don't intend on overclocking anything.....this one is going to have to last me for a few years...LOL


In that case, I would have to recommend that you look at either Socket AM2 for AMD or a Conroe. If your heart is set on AMD, get what you're now looking at but in AM2 format, which would include DDR2 versus DDR, and a 4200 or 4600 CPU (AM2 4400's were dropped before many (if any) were made). This way, a future upgrade will be little more than purchasing a faster CPU and swapping it out with your old one.

If your not definite about AMD/Intel, you owe it to yourself to take a careful look at the CoreDuo processors from Intel. Bang for your buck is basically a wash at the speeds you're considering but if you spend a bit more on the Conroe, you will get more performance than any AMD can provide.

Both are excellent processors (AMD/Intel) meaning one isn't better than the other, but the higher priced Intel procs are now the fastest in the world. Do some homework, decide what suits your needs and then go for it. You really can't go wrong either way except since you're starting from scratch, socket 939, at this point, would probably be a mistake.
August 16, 2006 10:37:13 PM

I had the same thoughts when I was building my computer and decided that the extra money for the 4400+ was worth it. As for the present time, there isn't a great deal of difference between the 939 and AM2 systems, but the future upgrades will all be with the AM2, so that would probably make more sense than if you're building from scratch. The only good reason to build a 939 at present would be if you can find the parts sufficiently cheap to make it worthwhile.

I have seen both 4400+ and 4800+ cpus on occasion, so it seems to mainly a matter of hunting them down, though they may be getting scarce.
August 17, 2006 11:51:53 AM

Ok, thanks everyone for all the advice. I will take it all into consideration. I thought I was set, but it looks like I have some more homework to do. LOL
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 1:15:11 PM

Quote:
BTW, I don't intend on overclocking anything.....this one is going to have to last me for a few years...LOL


If your not definite about AMD/Intel, you owe it to yourself to take a careful look at the CoreDuo processors from Intel. Bang for your buck is basically a wash at the speeds you're considering but if you spend a bit more on the Conroe, you will get more performance than any AMD can provide.

Both are excellent processors (AMD/Intel) meaning one isn't better than the other, but the higher priced Intel procs are now the fastest in the world. Do some homework, decide what suits your needs and then go for it. You really can't go wrong either way except since you're starting from scratch, socket 939, at this point, would probably be a mistake.

I would disagree with that statement. Especially the part where you claim that one isn't better then the other. It's been made clear that Core 2 Duo is better then AMD Athlon64 X2/FX/AM2/939 etc. Even a lowly E6400 more often than not tops an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+. Not only do Core 2 Duo's offer more performance per Megahertz (more efficient) they also clock higher. This is like getting the best of both world's in a single Processor.

Let me explain, during the Pentium 4 vs. AthlonXP years fans from either camp where locked into an eternal battle. It remained the same with the introduction of the Athlon64. The Pentium 4 (net-burst) and it's subsequent spawns (Pentium 5xx, 6xx, 8xx and D series) all relied on higher clock speeds in order to achieve performance due to there relatively long pipelines thus low IPC (efficiency). On the other hand we had AthlonXP/64 which clocked slower could beat a higher clocked Pentium 4(Net-burst) more often then not.

This has now changed. We have Core 2 Duo's which easily overclock into the 4Ghz range (some hitting 5Ghz), while being more efficient per clock. It is an all around better processor. Whether you're building a Virtualization workstation (Intel VT Technology comes in), Gaming, Encoding etc.. the Core 2 Duo tops the Athlon64 X2.

Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13Ghz tops an Athlon64 X2 4600+ @ 2.4Ghz. Talk about a better processor. On top of that it also runs cooler and drains less power.

It's an overall better processor. It's only limited in games at high resolutions by our current single graphics card power (SLI, Crossfire, Quad SLI really help the Core 2 Duo shine).

Of course don't take my word for it.. check out the benchmarks.
CLICK ME!
August 17, 2006 2:20:30 PM

Quote:
Ok, thanks everyone for all the advice. I will take it all into consideration. I thought I was set, but it looks like I have some more homework to do. LOL


Great idea. It is nice to see ppl willing to research out the problem and learn for themselves. Good stuff. May God speed you on your quest.

as far a cache goes; I love my 4200 (oc'd a bit) but if I could do it over again I would have gotten the 4400. You can always increase clock, but never add cache. Always get the most cache you can afford. Later on it may pay off huge. (that goes for the athlons and core2's)

@ other posters:

Nothing wrong w/ an ati board on an Nv mobo... in fact xfire "works" ( ;)  ) on many systems. Reality is that I did it b/c I have no plans for a dual card setup, and was unsure of ati mobos at the time and Nv had better performance in other things beyond games. Still like the nforce alot.

Core2 is better for sure, but as athlon prices drop lower amd begins to have the price/performance ratio better. Core2 is not dropping, if anything it is getting worse on that ratio. I agree core2 is better, but the amd chips are not dead. ;) 
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 2:49:24 PM

Quote:
Ok, thanks everyone for all the advice. I will take it all into consideration. I thought I was set, but it looks like I have some more homework to do. LOL


Great idea. It is nice to see ppl willing to research out the problem and learn for themselves. Good stuff. May God speed you on your quest.

as far a cache goes; I love my 4200 (oc'd a bit) but if I could do it over again I would have gotten the 4400. You can always increase clock, but never add cache. Always get the most cache you can afford. Later on it may pay off huge. (that goes for the athlons and core2's)

@ other posters:

Nothing wrong w/ an ati board on an Nv mobo... in fact xfire "works" ( ;)  ) on many systems. Reality is that I did it b/c I have no plans for a dual card setup, and was unsure of ati mobos at the time and Nv had better performance in other things beyond games. Still like the nforce alot.

Core2 is better for sure, but as athlon prices drop lower amd begins to have the price/performance ratio better. Core2 is not dropping, if anything it is getting worse on that ratio. I agree core2 is better, but the amd chips are not dead. ;) 

Hmmm these Prices were taken on Thursday August 17th 2006 on NewEgg.

Core 2 Duo
E6300: $203USD
E6400: $259USD
E6600: $369USD
E6700: $599USD


Athlon64 X2 AM2
3800+: $149USD
4000+: $379USD (yes still that high)
4200+: $183USD
4600+: $266USD

So what can you deduct from this info? Well, AMD's X2 3800+ is the cheapest. While Intel's Cheapest (the E6300) more often then not surpasses AMD's X2 4600+ in most games and apps.

So... Intel's Price/Performance is much lower then AMD's. As Intel's basic E6300 Core 2 Duo beats AMD's higher end Athlon64 X2 4600+ in terms of performance and price.




August 17, 2006 3:16:05 PM

Quote:
3.5 Floppy Drive : SONY Black 1.44MB 3.5" Internal Floppy Drive Model MPF920 Black - OEM


Now that's funny :!:
August 17, 2006 3:21:18 PM

woa man, was not wanting to make this an argument. I said "as amd's prices drop..." meaning it is not there yet. Not arguing that core2 is not better... Just a word of caution to watch the prices as they are all in flux right now. ;)  As demand falls for the amd's, the prices should drop even more to make them more competitive. But if you can find a core2 cheap enough then get it provided you dont have to wait too long for it to be in stock. ;) 
August 17, 2006 4:46:59 PM

Quote:
3.5 Floppy Drive : SONY Black 1.44MB 3.5" Internal Floppy Drive Model MPF920 Black - OEM


Now that's funny :!:

yep, using it to flash the bios is pretty funny. :roll: Besides they are only $8....so why not?
August 17, 2006 4:53:09 PM

Quote:
3.5 Floppy Drive : SONY Black 1.44MB 3.5" Internal Floppy Drive Model MPF920 Black - OEM


Now that's funny :!:

yep, using it to flash the bios is pretty funny. :roll:

Not sure he really meant it as an offense. Kinda funny to see it listed as most either do not bother to put it under specs on these forums, or they use an old one laying around the house. :) 

Plus, most mobo makers now have very reliable OS based flash utilities that remove the last need for the floppy drive. Heck, my 3 year old system was built w/o a floppy (asus was one of the first w/ that windows based utility) and of course my current one is w/o that vestigal tail as well. ;) 

regardless, pretty sure it was meant showing humor is something unusual on these forums. rock on.
August 17, 2006 5:02:46 PM

God yur such a bias idiot. I even like AMD but don't dismiss intel like you dismiss AMD.

He SAID he wasn't going to overclock, and said he wanted it to last for a while. Now I would say that either a e6300 setup, or a 4200 or maybe even a 4200 EE if he likes power effieciency.

Now it depend what he wants. If he wants uber power get a high end conroe. Thats anything over e6600.If he wants upgradeability, and enough power for the forseeable future get a mid-range AM2. Thats 4200 to 5000. He said it will be used for gaming and therefore he won't need to overclock very high, if at all.

At stock speeds and with those prices YOU listed the 4200 looks like the best deal. You say you are a "performance" fanboy. Maybe that blinds you from knowing value when you see it. If two processors perform almost the same and one is cheaper and more upgradeable, which one would you get?
August 17, 2006 5:04:25 PM

I'm not offended. LOL I figured why not list it? I'm sure most people have them in their system. If they don't, they would just use an old one laying around like you said, but I don't have one laying around, so I have to buy one LOL...I know it's sad....but in researching building, since this is my first, that it's better to have a floppy instead of usind a usb flash drive because those don't always work. Not sure how true it is, but I reckon it's better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have it. I know it's cliche, but it's good advice to live by.


As far as what I'm looking for goes, I'm looking for a sweet setup that I won't have to upgrade again for a few years. I would like it upgradeable, so that I can upgrade it again if I find the money or need to do so. But I would like if I didn't have to. I can't afford the bleeding edge right now so the brand new C2D Extremes are out. I've been looking at E6600, 939 x2 4400+, and AM2 4200+ since I can't find an AM2 4400.
August 17, 2006 5:09:37 PM

fair enough man, cliche or not. 8)

and what i am talking about is not using a usb key, but running a flash update from within windows. No usb at all. Just dl the bios, update and restart. simple. ;) 
August 17, 2006 5:17:56 PM

I see....I actually didn't know you could do that. I've always bought box systems up until now. Ones where bios and windows were already set up for me. LOL It's gonna be rough trying to do all these things for the first time. I think I can do it though...I've been looking at http://sysbuild.corsairmemory.com/report.aspx?id=2&sid=...
and it doesn't look that difficult.
August 17, 2006 5:29:20 PM

Good looking site. Nice step-by-step. I did not read it all but it looks really comprehensive. Should give you a nice leg-up on many first-time builders.

have fun, building is so much fun. Always nice when you are all done and hit the power... and it works. ;) 
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 5:30:44 PM

Quote:
God yur such a bias idiot. I even like AMD but don't dismiss intel like you dismiss AMD.

He SAID he wasn't going to overclock, and said he wanted it to last for a while. Now I would say that either a e6300 setup, or a 4200 or maybe even a 4200 EE if he likes power effieciency.

Now it depend what he wants. If he wants uber power get a high end conroe. Thats anything over e6600.If he wants upgradeability, and enough power for the forseeable future get a mid-range AM2. Thats 4200 to 5000. He said it will be used for gaming and therefore he won't need to overclock very high, if at all.


Corvette... will you quit it already!!

He was looking for a CPU between the 4200 and 4400 (as the title says "AMD 4200 vs. AMD 4400"). In that price range (which is $183-235) you find the Core 2 Duo E6300 to be the best bet ($203).
As for upgradability, current 975x, 865P, nForce 570/590 all support Kentsfield (Quad Core). So in other words (unlike a current AM2 board which will not support AMD's 4x4) you're not limited.

So you get Better performance, lower price and a great upgrade path when going Core 2 Duo over Athlon64 X2. ;) 

So I ask... show us FACTS like an open test that CLEARLY SHOWS a current AM2 motherboard running an AM3 processor or a Quad Core processor. Back up your claims.. we want to see 'em tested and working.

I on the other hand can show FACTS stating that the Intel Core 2 Quad Core based processor (Codenamed Kentsfield) runs on i975x and i965P boards. Click HERE and HERE to see.

Once again you've been proven wrong. So please, quit the fanboy schematics and let it be you are not in my league kid.

Quote:

At stock speeds and with those prices YOU listed the 4200 looks like the best deal. You say you are a "performance" fanboy. Maybe that blinds you from knowing value when you see it. If two processors perform almost the same and one is cheaper and more upgradeable, which one would you get?


Given the facts I've presented.. this would mean the Core 2 Duo E6300 vs the Athlon64 X2 4600+. Both perform almost the same and the E6300 is cheaper... and the Core 2 Duo platforms are more upgradeable (as we've seen by the Xtremesystems posts where they ran a Kentsfield on an i975x motherboard without a single problem)... AMD on the other hand.. we don't know..:p 

So given you own logic.. Core 2 Duo E6300 it is! It's also got the most long term potential due to 128bit SIMD bandwidth, VT Virtualisation technology and a whole slew of new features that the Athlon64... lacks.
August 17, 2006 5:43:43 PM

Quote:
current 975x, 865P, nForce 570/590 all support Kentsfield (Quad Core). So in other words (unlike a current AM2 board which will not support AMD's 4x4) you're not limited.


Not wanting to step into this flame war, just thought I would correct an omission.
The 4x4 system will be a dual processor system, so you need a dual socket mobo. That dual socket mobo will be dual AM2 sockets, but it is not in the same path of upgrades like the quad cores from both companies, more specialized for enthusiasts. AMDs upcomming quad core will be supported on current am2 chipsets (single and dual socket)... just like kentsfield on the intel socket. tgdaily had the interview w/ that statement from amd a while back. You are not limited for upgrades w/ either system. Current cpu power aside, both have good paths.

now you two can go back to arguing. ;) 
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 5:47:14 PM

Quote:
current 975x, 865P, nForce 570/590 all support Kentsfield (Quad Core). So in other words (unlike a current AM2 board which will not support AMD's 4x4) you're not limited.


Not wanting to step into this flame war, just thought I would correct an omission.
The 4x4 system will be a dual processor system, so you need a dual socket mobo. That dual socket mobo will be dual AM2 sockets, but it is not in the same path of upgrades like the quad cores from both companies, more specialized for enthusiasts. AMDs upcomming quad core will be supported on current am2 chipsets (single and dual socket)... just like kentsfield on the intel socket. tgdaily had the interview w/ that statement from amd a while back. You are not limited for upgrades w/ either system. Current cpu power aside, both have good paths.

now you two can go back to arguing. ;) 

First of all I'm not arguing with you... just stating the facts as we currently know them from tests.

That's the statement from AMD, I've read it... but there's a difference between what they say.. and reality. Until tests confirm it, it's truly up in the air. We know it will be based on the AM2 socket but we don't know if current AM2 chipsets and current 3rd party vendor solutions will be able to officially support it. Until it's tested, we truly do not know.

Kentsfield on the other hand HAS been tested and it works.

I clearly remember AMD stating that we didn't need to worry about Barton working on current nForce2 board as they supported the 400MHz FSB with a simple BIOS update.
This was not always true, it came down to vendor models and revisions with MANY left out in the cold and only able to use the 333FSB option.

This of course has affected Intel as well with there i945 and many other chipsets.
August 17, 2006 5:50:15 PM

WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU UPGRADE TO A KENTSFEILD IF YOU BUY CONROE NOW!?!?!?
I know YOU would but most other people don't buy a processor for 3 months then dump it. I'm not talking about upgradeability for a couple months because hopefully all platforms have that much lifespan. I'm talking upgrading next year to K8L and AM3 cpu's that will be drop in upgrades for AM2.

I didn't say the 4600 i said the 4200 which is close performance wise and is cheaper thatn the e6300.

Stop your higher than thou attitude shit, and go read the thread about engineers on the forum to see how many people care that you were a hardware engineer. They say like I say that a peice of paper can't fix a dumbass like you.
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 5:54:57 PM

Quote:
WHY THE **** WOULD YOU UPGRADE TO A KENTSFEILD IF YOU BUY CONROE NOW!?!?!?
I know YOU would but most other people don't buy a processor for 3 months then dump it. I'm not talking about upgradeability for a couple months because hopefully all platforms have that much lifespan. I'm talking upgrading next year to K8L and AM3 cpu's that will be drop in upgrades for AM2.

I didn't say the 4600 i said the 4200 which is close performance wise and is cheaper thatn the e6300.

Stop your higher than thou attitude ****, and go read the thread about engineers on the forum to see how many people care that you were a hardware engineer. They say like I say that a peice of paper can't fix a dumbass like you.


I'm a dumbass now.. LOL.

You have yet to prove a single point. The only people on your side are those who, like you and Sharikou, are fanboys. It's a disease really. Unable to come to grips with the fact that your preffered Processor Company is no longer #1.

I've proven time and time again what i've said with solid evidence and FACTS backed by 3rd party tests not wild speculation as you seem to be trying to feed people.

Quote:
I didn't say the 4600 i said the 4200 which is close performance wise and is cheaper thatn the e6300.

Well that's great but in his price range $183-$235 (which he's willing to pay if there's a performance difference) the E6300 comes out on top matching the performance of a 4600+ which is out of his price range.
August 17, 2006 6:02:59 PM

I'm not disputing your FACTS that you cling to. I'm pointing out that your misinterpreting your facts. You show us a bench of a game where the FPS are already almost 200. SO if i can get 180 fps with a 4200 and upgradeability in the long term, and a cheaper price, why would i get an e6300 just to get anothe 10 FPS. You wouldn't be able to see it.

As for Kemtsfield, you ARE a dumbass if you just bought an x6800 and are going to go out and buy a Kenstfield when it comes out. Fpr being a financial advisor you have no sense of the value of a dollar. :roll:
August 17, 2006 6:06:39 PM

Quote:
This of course has affected Intel as well with there i945 and many other chipsets.


Agreed, it has affected both.

I do know that amd has been beat down by core2 enough in the reviews and critic sites that they cannot afford intel the pr boost if they did not put the new cpu's on the same socket/chipset and keep a nice upgrade path for am2. I would bet good $ that it will be so, b/c if not they will be losing that much more of the market cred that the athlon64/opteron gained them over the years. (and there is not much left to lose!)

regardless, I think we are agreeing more or less. Go ahead and ignore me and devote effort to the other argument. ;) 
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 6:15:59 PM

Quote:
I'm not disputing your FACTS that you cling to. I'm pointing out that your misinterpreting your facts. You show us a bench of a game where the FPS are already almost 200. SO if i can get 180 fps with a 4200 and upgradeability in the long term, and a cheaper price, why would i get an e6300 just to get anothe 10 FPS. You wouldn't be able to see it.

As for Kemtsfield, you ARE a dumbass if you just bought an x6800 and are going to go out and buy a Kenstfield when it comes out. Fpr being a financial advisor you have no sense of the value of a dollar. :roll:


First of all, another argument you're about to lose.

It DOES matter how many FPS you get in teh long run. First of all imagine newer games that don't run at such high FPS. We're talking long run right? Difference in playability between let's say 20FPS and 40FPS (4200+ vs. E6300 percentage wise) is noticeable. Now take into account that E6300 supports wider SIMD instructions and newer instructions not yet used. All these point out to even greater un-tapped performance.

Now as for Upgrading to Kentsfield, we're not talking about me. We're talking about MindFlare327, if he get's the lower end E6300, supporting Kentsfield is VERY important. It gives him a clear and decisive upgrade path to Quad Core with an 82% peformance efficiency (performance rises 54% going from Dual to Quad core). Cinebench scores show 63s for Single core E6600, 33s for Core 2 Duo E6600 and 19s for Kentsfield 2.4Ghz (Dual Core 2 Duo E6600).

So again... where's your argument?
August 17, 2006 6:27:45 PM

First of all, the difference betwen the 4200 and the e6300 wouldn't be 20-40. Thats because the cpu has very little effetc compared to the GPU. It would proably be more like 35-40. Anyway by the time you'd be down that low BECAUSE of your cpu, you'd be able to upgrade to a true quad core AM3 cpu, and just drop it in. Probably by that time intel will have changed something(chipset,socket,voltage) and you won't be able to.
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 6:38:59 PM

Quote:
First of all, the difference betwen the 4200 and the e6300 wouldn't be 20-40. Thats because the cpu has very little effetc compared to the GPU. It would proably be more like 35-40. Anyway by the time you'd be down that low BECAUSE of your cpu, you'd be able to upgrade to a true quad core AM3 cpu, and just drop it in. Probably by that time intel will have changed something(chipset,socket,voltage) and you won't be able to.


Oh boy, you're a true flamboyant fanboy. So Intel is probably going to change something (while Quad Core Kentsfields work currently and there's no reason to change anything) while AMD WILL BE ABLE TO (while no tests have been conducted and we really don't know for sure).

Reverse that statement as your BIAS is showing. Everyone on these forums should concentrate on this post. Clearly shows a distinct and absolute BIAS.

It should read (given the FACTS we currently have).

Quote:
Anyway by the time you'd be down that low BECAUSE of your cpu, you'd probably be able to upgrade to a true quad core AM3 cpu, and probably only need to just drop it in. However Intel's Kentsfield (Quad Core) works officially and with certainty on current socekt 775 boards supporting Core 2 Duo.
August 17, 2006 6:46:56 PM

AMD's quad core will be better than intel's quad core. Call that a fanboy statemnet but many reviews agree. I still don't get hy someone would go buy a conroe system now and then go and buy kentsfield in a couple months. There won't be any optimizations then, but there will be by the time AMD's quad's are out. I think the concensus is that AMD will come out on top in H2 07' and2008, and you will still be able to drop a cpu then into your AM2 board you have now. If AMD lied about that they would have some very angry customers, and since its in their best interest to make it compatible, i don't see why they wouldn't do it.
August 17, 2006 6:51:12 PM

Quote:
AMD's quad core will be better than intel's quad core. Call that a fanboy statemnet but many reviews agree.


As it stands, your statement is only another useless "fanboy statement".
If you can list your sources (ie. the reviews you speak of), and they are reputable, it will cease to be a fanboy statement.

Your sources, please?
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 6:56:43 PM

Quote:
AMD's quad core will be better than intel's quad core. Call that a fanboy statemnet but many reviews agree. I still don't get hy someone would go buy a conroe system now and then go and buy kentsfield in a couple months. There won't be any optimizations then, but there will be by the time AMD's quad's are out. I think the concensus is that AMD will come out on top in H2 07' and2008, and you will still be able to drop a cpu then into your AM2 board you have now. If AMD lied about that they would have some very angry customers, and since its in their best interest to make it compatible, i don't see why they wouldn't do it.


Wow you have a review of AMD's Quad Core.. POST SOME LINKS MAN!!!

Oh wait... you're mistaking speculation with facts again. Still haven't learned have you. I don't twist facts as you claim. I post FACTS... you post unfounded, baseless speculation and accusations. It's why you've lost every argument thus far.

What will an AM3 processor have as a benefit of being placed in an AM2 board? How is this beneficial? It's good as it gives an indication that there's the possibility of being able to run a Quad Core AM3 in an AM2 board (not certainty you're mistaking the two).

Certainty is Kentsfield Quad Core working in Socket 775 boards that support Core 2 Duo. ;) 

AMD wouldn't be lying dude.. they said AM3 processors will work in AM2 sockets. They didn't say that AM3 processors would work in every AM2 3rd party motherboard model and revision...:p 
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 6:57:45 PM

Quote:
AMD's quad core will be better than intel's quad core. Call that a fanboy statemnet but many reviews agree.


As it stands, your statement is only another useless "fanboy statement".
If you can list your sources (ie. the reviews you speak of), and they are reputable, it will cease to be a fanboy statement.

Your sources, please?

He doesn't have sources.. he's another Sharikoo.. I'm exposing him quite well me thinks.
August 17, 2006 7:03:16 PM

Here, i found one of your bogus recomendations for someone that would be perfect for AM2. I wasn't going to go and find one but since you insist on saying i make everything up... here you go. LINK!

Everyone take a look at his unbias recommenation. He says that x2 3800 is a great buy for low end but here he goes again dismissing AMD.
August 17, 2006 7:09:24 PM

Since this is a brand new build, get either an AM2 X2 or Core 2 Duo system depending on your budget. Skip AMD's socket 939.

Considering that both pricewatch and pricegrabber show the 4400+ being $508 and $552 respectively, you'd have to be insane to pick a 4400+ over a 4200+. If you can find the 4400+ for 55 bucks more, you might as well get an E6400.

Price/performance is nice but ultimately it's up to your budget. From the prices mentioned by ElMoIsEviL, the E6600 is double the cost of a 4200. Is it double the speed? No, though 25-35% better performance, to me, is worth the extra money.

Look at the cost of a X6800 over the E6700. The X6800 is almost twice the cost of a E6700. Is it worth a 1.6-6.4% speed increase based on the F.E.A.R. benchmarks? I would say no but to some money is no object and they only want the best.

If your set on AMD, get the 4200 and the ASUS motherboard.

If your not set on AMD but are on a bit on a budget, I'd go with the E6300 Core 2 Duo with the ASUS P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe Socket T. The reason in getting the E6300 is to make up for the cost of the motherboard. I mentioned this motherboard since you already listed a motherboard with SLI.

If you end up not needing SLI, get the E6600 Core 2 Duo since you will be getting a cheaper motherboard.
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 7:13:44 PM

Quote:
Here, i found one of your bogus recomendations for someone that would be perfect for AM2. I wasn't going to go and find one but since you insist on saying i make everything up... here you go. LINK!

Everyone take a look at his unbias recommenation. He says that x2 3800 is a great buy for low end but here he goes again dismissing AMD.


Umm hmmm..

That's simple...
Look at his needs...

Quote:
Looking for a gaming machine with decent performance. This will be my first DIY PC, so overclocking will not be a priority. Decent performance with a good upgrade path over the next few years is what I am looking for.

Any suggestions / comments to improve the price / performance ratio?


He wanted Price/Performance, best price performance is the E6300, it's priced at $200USD but performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 $270USD processor. That's $70USD difference. Take $200USD and subtract $70USD and you have $130USD... x2 3800+ is $150USD... so it's no longer best price performance.

Another aspect of his post.. is his need for certainty. He wants decent performance with an upgrade path. Core 2 Duo motherboard support Kentsfield with certainty (tested and results published). It's not going on probability but certainty.

Take those factors into consideration and you have that for his needs.. Core 2 Duo was the better buy.
August 17, 2006 7:20:48 PM

Quote:
Here, i found one of your bogus recomendations for someone that would be perfect for AM2. I wasn't going to go and find one but since you insist on saying i make everything up... here you go. LINK!

Everyone take a look at his unbias recommenation. He says that x2 3800 is a great buy for low end but here he goes again dismissing AMD.


Umm hmmm..

That's simple...
Look at his needs...

Quote:
Looking for a gaming machine with decent performance. This will be my first DIY PC, so overclocking will not be a priority. Decent performance with a good upgrade path over the next few years is what I am looking for.

Any suggestions / comments to improve the price / performance ratio?


He wanted Price/Performance, best price performance is the E6300, it's priced at $200USD but performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 $270USD processor. That's $70USD difference. Take $200USD and subtract $70USD and you have $130USD... x2 3800+ is $150USD... so it's no longer best price performance.

Another aspect of his post.. is his need for certainty. He wants decent performance with an upgrade path. Core 2 Duo motherboard support Kentsfield with certainty (tested and results published). It's not going on probability but certainty.

Take those factors into consideration and you have that for his needs.. Core 2 Duo was the better buy.

Ummm... No, your just plain wrong on this one. He had wanted to get an AM2 system for the decent performance at a low price, and with good upgradeability. He wanted a x2 3800. Then your like no no thats a horrible spu. Get the e6300 its a much better deal. Sorry to ruin your line of think but subtracting $70 is the stupidest thing i've ever seen. As we all no cpu pricing isn't linear, as we see with the x6800 and FX-62. He aslo said next few years. Kentsfeild is 3 months, so don't argue about that cuz your just wrong. This is just more evidence of how you bend information to fit your needs.

Whatever KING KOWITALL :roll:

a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 7:23:05 PM

Quote:
Since this is a brand new build, get either an AM2 X2 or Core 2 Duo system depending on your budget. Skip AMD's socket 939.

Considering that both pricewatch and pricegrabber show the 4400+ being $508 and $552 respectively, you'd have to be insane to pick a 4400+ over a 4200+. If you can find the 4400+ for 55 bucks more, you might as well get an E6400.

Price/performance is nice but ultimately it's up to your budget. From the prices mentioned by ElMoIsEviL, the E6600 is double the cost of a 4200. Is it double the speed? No, though 25-35% better performance, to me, is worth the extra money.

Look at the cost of a X6800 over the E6700. The X6800 is almost twice the cost of a E6700. Is it worth a 1.6-6.4% speed increase based on the F.E.A.R. benchmarks? I would say no but to some money is no object and they only want the best.

If your set on AMD, get the 4200 and the ASUS motherboard.

If your not set on AMD but are on a bit on a budget, I'd go with the E6300 Core 2 Duo with the ASUS P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe Socket T. The reason in getting the E6300 is to make up for the cost of the motherboard. I mentioned this motherboard since you already listed a motherboard with SLI.

If you end up not needing SLI, get the E6600 Core 2 Duo since you will be getting a cheaper motherboard.


Here are some prices dude.. from New Egg

Core 2 Duo E6300 $200
Core 2 Duo E6400 $259
Core 2 Duo E6600 $369
Core 2 Duo E6700 $599

Athlon64 X2 3800+ (939) $149
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (939) $183
Athlon64 X2 4400+ (939) $235
Athlon64 X2 4600+ (939) $247
Athlon64 X2 4800+ (939) $307

Athlon64 X2 3800+ (AM2) $149
Athlon64 X2 4000+ (AM2) $379
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (AM2) $183
Athlon64 X2 4600+ (AM2) $266

User is looking between 4200+ and 4400+ that means he's wanting to spend $183-$235 on the CPU. So he could go for the 3800+ or for $7 more get a CPU (Core 2 Duo E6300) that performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ ($266).
E6300 is in his price range and he only has to spend $200 Intel Dollars to get a $266 AMD Dollars CPU.

Makes perfect sense to me
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 7:28:03 PM

Quote:
Here, i found one of your bogus recomendations for someone that would be perfect for AM2. I wasn't going to go and find one but since you insist on saying i make everything up... here you go. LINK!

Everyone take a look at his unbias recommenation. He says that x2 3800 is a great buy for low end but here he goes again dismissing AMD.


Umm hmmm..

That's simple...
Look at his needs...

Quote:
Looking for a gaming machine with decent performance. This will be my first DIY PC, so overclocking will not be a priority. Decent performance with a good upgrade path over the next few years is what I am looking for.

Any suggestions / comments to improve the price / performance ratio?


He wanted Price/Performance, best price performance is the E6300, it's priced at $200USD but performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 $270USD processor. That's $70USD difference. Take $200USD and subtract $70USD and you have $130USD... x2 3800+ is $150USD... so it's no longer best price performance.

Another aspect of his post.. is his need for certainty. He wants decent performance with an upgrade path. Core 2 Duo motherboard support Kentsfield with certainty (tested and results published). It's not going on probability but certainty.

Take those factors into consideration and you have that for his needs.. Core 2 Duo was the better buy.

Ummm... No, your just plain wrong on this one. He had wanted to get an AM2 system for the decent performance at a low price, and with good upgradeability. He wanted a x2 3800. Then your like no no thats a horrible spu. Get the e6300 its a much better deal. Sorry to ruin your line of think but subtracting $70 is the stupidest thing i've ever seen. As we all no cpu pricing isn't linear, as we see with the x6800 and FX-62. He aslo said next few years. Kentsfeild is 3 months, so don't argue about that cuz your just wrong. This is just more evidence of how you bend information to fit your needs.

No.. he never said he wanted an AM2, he said he was looking for a decent gaming machine with decent performance with good updradability he also wanted COMMENTS TO IMPROVE THE PRICE PERFORMANCE RATIO.

That's where the Core 2 Duo E6300 came in. It performs like a $270 AMD CPU (4600+) (70 more dollars) but costs
only 50 more then a 3800+. Making it the best performance/price ratio.

So I answered ALL his questions. Re-read his post.. he did ask for comments to improve price performance ratio. My $70 comment I just made to you proved my recommendation was just that.

Again.. you've lost another argument. I don't pretend to always be right, I have been wrong and users have pointed it out.. this wasn't one of those times.
August 17, 2006 7:29:30 PM

$17 more learn to count. You said 4200-$183, e6300-$200. Thats 17. And if thats always your logic, why not work you way up to e6600, it seems to have good price performanc. :roll:
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 7:31:56 PM

Quote:
$17 more learn to count. You said 4200-$183, e6300-$200. Thats 17. And if thats always your logic, why not work you way up to e6600, it seems to have good price performanc. :roll:


I had made a typo and type 7 instead of 17.. didn't hit the 1 key hard enough... anyways.. I've re-worded it right away.
August 17, 2006 7:37:55 PM

OK, lets get one thing straight. The competitor for the e6300 isn't always the 4600. More often than not its the 4200. Even from your own FACTS, the 4200 beat the e6300 in some and other the e6300 beat the 4600, but that doesn't mean the 4600 is worse than the 6300.

He did ask for a x2 3800 as thats what he put in his list. It fit his needs but you felt the need to get conroe in the dorr and make him think thats what he needed. The 3800 would have been a great choice and hopefully he didn't let you comment screw him up.

Good Job Know It ALL. You can't be proven wrong if you don't admit it. :roll:


      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest