4400+or 4600+

[Grunge]

I have a tough situation here. i currently have a 3700 + no oc, and i would like to upgrade to DC. I am sticking with socket 939 until AMD gets a decent quad core out that makes me want to upgrade. Anyway, seeing as i want to keep my socket 939 setup, i want to get the best prices. I first thought about the fx-60 but seeing how it is not worth about $200 more then a processor that is almost as good as it is turns me off.. So i have narrowed it down to a 4400 or a 4600...after reading many articles about this i have came to the conclusion that a 4400 is better then a 4600 because of the increased cache size of the 4400..I also read that the 4400 can oc to a 4600 in a heartbeat and can even get up to a 4800 even easier. With all this being said, is it wise to go ahead and buy a 4400 if i plan to keep my socket 939 setup for maybe a year more? Also if you disagree with my decision feel free to correct me, im open to learning new things.. Thanks!

My current setup:
evga nforce 4 sli edition socket 939
Athlon 3700+ no oc
4gb ddr400
evga 8800 GTX (ya i know that a 4400 wont stop bottleneck but i had to have the dx10!)
XG vortec 600W powersupply

 

[function9]

I haven't looked at the benchmarks in a while. But I do remember that the cache size not playing as big a role in most desktop situations as more mhz would.

The 4400 is a good cpu though and from experience, yes it can reach 4600 speeds quite easily. I did get it to 4800 speeds but the temp was a bit high for my liking while running a passive heatsink so I settled running it at 4600 speeds.

So if you plan on OCing, yes 4400 would be a good choice, if not, I would go with the 4600.

 

[nawfal]

i got a 4400 and ocd it to 2.7ghz on air

people keep saying you need the fastest graphics card for 8800, i believe this is only the case at lower resolutions. at anything about 1600 x 1200 + 4aa etc its irrelevant. 4400 is enough

 

[BaronMatrix]

I have a tough situation here. i currently have a 3700 + no oc, and i would like to upgrade to DC. I am sticking with socket 939 until AMD gets a decent quad core out that makes me want to upgrade. Anyway, seeing as i want to keep my socket 939 setup, i want to get the best prices. I first thought about the fx-60 but seeing how it is not worth about $200 more then a processor that is almost as good as it is turns me off.. So i have narrowed it down to a 4400 or a 4600...after reading many articles about this i have came to the conclusion that a 4400 is better then a 4600 because of the increased cache size of the 4400..I also read that the 4400 can oc to a 4600 in a heartbeat and can even get up to a 4800 even easier. With all this being said, is it wise to go ahead and buy a 4400 if i plan to keep my socket 939 setup for maybe a year more? Also if you disagree with my decision feel free to correct me, im open to learning new things.. Thanks!

My current setup:
evga nforce 4 sli edition socket 939
Athlon 3700+ no oc
4gb ddr400
evga 8800 GTX (ya i know that a 4400 wont stop bottleneck but i had to have the dx10!)
XG vortec 600W powersupply

I have a 4400+ at 2.3GHz and it zooms (turn HT up to 210MHz) - well, it zoomed at 2.2, but I figured I'd push it a little. You should be able to hit 220 withput a problem, but believe me you won't need to.

If you just want raw speed at the best price, get an Opteron 175. It should clock to 2.8GHz (260 HT) without a problem though you may need 1.38V or so.

Fortunately the bottleneck will be based on the resolution of your monitor. My 7800GT plays at 1280 UHQ (2xAA,2xAF). If you go to 1600 or 1920 you will see the effect, but again if you go with the Opteron 175 at 2.8GHZ(FX62 speed) you can still enjoy those resolutions.

I'm actually thinking about it since I'm about to upgrade to 1680 WideScreen and I want a little cushion.

 

[mjam]

I have a 4400 and I can't get it to OC at all. 201 FSB is it; and that is questionable. I tried upping the core voltage to 1.4v; didn't help (I did leave it @ 1.35 and 200FSB--seemed more stable there). Motherboard is MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum, supposed to be a good OC board and seems to have enough flexibility.

All that said, I am still pleased with my unit. I am running an HIS X1950Pro 512 MB IceQ3 Turbo and 2 X 1GB OCZ DDR400 Platinum. The RAM had to be bumped to 2.75v (okay for OCZ) in order to get 1T (mobo recognized the SPD 2-3-2-5 timings). System seems to be very stable @ current config (running 2 X Prime 95 for hours now) and scores 9900-9920 3DMark05. According to the FM website, I am dusting all other similar setups--including at least 2 4600's with FSB @ 225-230 and X1950Pros.

 

[Grunge]

Thanks for the responses everyone! I run native 1440 X 900 and i only receive minimal bottlenecks on oblivion (surprise surprise...) but i am thinking about just getting the 4600 seeing as my room gets too hot to oc. BTW with my current setup, would a 600W power supply be adequate to add a DC processor? Any other input is also welcome, I will read anything you have to say about it. Thanks again!

 

[MikeGR7]

I was in your place before a year lol. Take the 4400. Yes, more cache gets beaten by more mhz but ONLY in a certain analogy. If 4400 was like 2.0 ghz and 4600 was 2.6, then yes 1MB cache can't catch 600mhz difference.
This isn't true with only 200mhz more though. I assure you that 200mhz is nothing. Every single game bench i've seen favors the 4400 over 4600. If gaming is what you want, take the 4400. It's really faster! Well 4600 makes up in some other apps but not in gaming. I had a Zalman 9500 back then and reached 2.8 with ~50c load. Even if you are not overclocking, 4400 beats 4600 in gaming.
Well that's my research and experience, but it's YOUR choice!

 

[tekzor]

Thanks for the responses everyone! I run native 1440 X 900 and i only receive minimal bottlenecks on oblivion (surprise surprise...) but i am thinking about just getting the 4600 seeing as my room gets too hot to oc. BTW with my current setup, would a 600W power supply be adequate to add a DC processor? Any other input is also welcome, I will read anything you have to say about it. Thanks again!

Get a better cooler and OC that baby!. I remember my 3800+ venice core skt 393. It was so fast at 2.4ghz especialy in oblivion with a x800gt. Try pushign your processor, its also fun!

 

[Grunge]

Ok, i have also read those points that say a 4600 has bug issues or something that degrades performance. Well i am buying the OEM version of w/e proc. i get so im going to probably buy a good zalman HSF. With a lil arctic silver 5 i should be able to tweak. Everytime i start thinking about the 4600 people keep telling me to get the 4440 regardless of if i will oc. So that is what seems logical right now. I will keep looking around just to make sure then i will order. Thanks for the help!

 

[gOJDO]

1. The 4600+ is faster than 4400+.
2. The 4600+ can reach higher frequencies than the 4400+ and it has more OC options.
So, the 4600+ is a better choice than the 4400+, considering all aspects.
If you are going to OC, I will recommend you an Opteron 170. It is a better OC-er than both, 4400+ and 4600+.

 

[Grunge]

This is now a stalemate. I probably wont be ocing alot considering my room gets slightly warm as it is. But is it worth spending the extra 20-40 bucks for the 4600. I am seeing alot of things telling me that in gaming there will be little to no difference, and the extra cache the 4400 has almost makes up for the ghz difference. I suppose i just need to make my own mind about it. Thanks for the input!

 

[mjam]

You'll probably have second thoughts about either choice; all I can say is I believe I made the correct choice and I would dare say it seems there are a higher percentage of pleased 4400 owners than 4600. Even though I cannot OC my 4400 I am still pleased with its performance (see above),

A couple of people talked about coolers--I have an Antec Nine Hundred case and a Zalman 9500 cooler. The package works very well. Idle is 30C; benchmarking (3DMark05) can run CPU temp to 38C; full-tilt CPU work (2 X Prime95) will take it to almost 50C. Taking CPU back to idle the temps drop to almost idle temps within seconds.

 

[Grunge]

Yes, you are correct. I do see a good bit of people satisfied with the 4400 then the 4600...Whether or not the 4400 oor the 4600 can oc better i suppose that can be debated....i have read a few more forums that already had this type of question and many people just get into arguments about which can oc better...I have came to a final question...Which processor the 4400 or the 4600 will perform better for gaming on stock frequencies? This is to avoid the whole ocing issue... Because if i wanted to oc that bad i would just get a 3800 x2 and phase change it and oc the mess out of it. But i just want a good stock processor that will perform well for gaming without having to switch sockets. BTW my mobo does not support opty's i do believe. You are right about another thing, when i finally do buy a proc. i will probably have second thoughts about both...its seems to me that its a toss up. But i would really like to see which chip the 4400 or the 4600 performs the best in gaming.

 

[gOJDO]

If the difference in prices is $20-$40, then the 4400+ is a better choice. 4600+ is less worth for the money.

 

[Grunge]

Well I think i am just going to go with the 4400+...Its really a toss up which will be better for gaming...besides with a good HSF if i am not satisfied with the stock performance of the 4400 then i can try to oc and see how my temps hold out. I appreciate all the inputs!

 

[sirheck]

i had/still have the 3700 and have oc,ed it before.
i upgraded to the 4400 and see no difference for what i do.

my brother has the 4600 and still dont really see any difference.
maybe i have dull senses :lol:

 

[Grunge]

Well, I am in essence trying to future proof my system...I have an 8800GTX 4gb of ram although still running at 400mhz still not too bad its just not the best. Then i have a single core processor. I think that the 8800GTX is sorta a waste of money if i then cant play the upcomign dx10 games that also support and some of them require DC. Thats just my train of thought as of now. I may be wrong but this is what currently seems logical to me. Thanks for the input though!

 

[sirheck]

Well, I am in essence trying to future proof my system...I have an 8800GTX 4gb of ram although still running at 400mhz still not too bad its just not the best. Then i have a single core processor. I think that the 8800GTX is sorta a waste of money if i then cant play the upcomign dx10 games that also support and some of them require DC. Thats just my train of thought as of now. I may be wrong but this is what currently seems logical to me. Thanks for the input though!

well either one should work fine.

thats the reason i upgraded=dualcore.

 

[Hawkeye22]

I have my 4400+ running at 2.4ghz stable with the stock hsf. runs 36°c idle, 47°c under load. I can get it to 2.6ghz but wasn't comfortable with the temps and it runs all my games just fine at 2.4ghz.

 

[Grunge]

Ok, well i have made up my mind on the 4400, but since im buying OEM i am also buying a new HSF. I have heard good things about Zalman and this one seems to be the most popular http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16835118223

Would this work well?

 

[sirheck]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16835185125

this one is good and cheaper.

 

[Grunge]

That does look like a good one, and unlike the zalman this one does not require a blood sacrifice to install it heh! That kills me seeing all the reviews on the zalman talking about how they cut themselves attempting to install..I think i may get the arctic.

 

[sirheck]

That does look like a good one, and unlike the zalman this one does not require a blood sacrifice to install it heh! That kills me seeing all the reviews on the zalman talking about how they cut themselves attempting to install..I think i may get the arctic.

either one should work about the same.
the ac cooler is much cheaper though.
i have 2 of them

 

[Grunge]

Are they as heavy as the reviews claim? Some even said they snapped the brackets off the mobo and now they have to replace their mobo..i would hate for that to happen.

 

[everett]

i got a 4400 and ocd it to 2.7ghz on air

people keep saying you need the fastest graphics card for 8800, i believe this is only the case at lower resolutions. at anything about 1600 x 1200 + 4aa etc its irrelevant. 4400 is enough

Mine on stock cooler.
My brother had it to 2.74 but that was with his ram.