Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4400+or 4600+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 10, 2007 5:19:17 PM

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

More about : 4400 4600

February 10, 2007 7:10:03 PM

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.
February 10, 2007 7:59:08 PM

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
Related resources
February 10, 2007 8:01:13 PM

Quote:
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.
February 10, 2007 8:02:34 PM

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.
February 10, 2007 8:14:52 PM

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!
February 10, 2007 9:25:49 PM

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! :D 
February 10, 2007 10:05:53 PM

Quote:
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!
February 10, 2007 10:23:19 PM

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!
February 10, 2007 10:38:53 PM

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+.
February 10, 2007 11:16:40 PM

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!
February 10, 2007 11:29:51 PM

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.
February 10, 2007 11:53:16 PM

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.
February 10, 2007 11:59:45 PM

If the difference in prices is $20-$40, then the 4400+ is a better choice. 4600+ is less worth for the money.
February 11, 2007 12:07:01 AM

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!
February 11, 2007 12:54:48 AM

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: 
February 11, 2007 1:24:34 AM

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!
February 11, 2007 1:27:18 AM

Quote:
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.
February 11, 2007 1:59:44 AM

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.
February 11, 2007 2:37:03 AM

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.
February 11, 2007 2:56:58 AM

Quote:
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 :wink:
February 11, 2007 3:01:33 AM

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.
February 11, 2007 3:02:16 AM

Quote:
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.
February 11, 2007 3:05:12 AM

At the end of the day, between your two choices the X2 4400+ is the better one. Why?

1) It's cheaper.

2) It has something (1MB L2 cache per core) that the other choice cannot gain (that is, you cannot overclock or mod the chip to have the missing amount of L2 cache).

3) In terms of CPU speed, it's very likely that you can squeeze the missing 200MHz difference from the X2 4400+. Overclocking, of course, presents no guarantees.

Hope that helps!
February 11, 2007 3:07:17 AM

Quote:
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=N82E1683...

Would this work well?


I know I'm at the tail end of things here, at least so far, but I used to run a 4400+ and I had it up to 2640 mhz on the stock heatsink with ease, and ran it to 2750 after putting on a Zalman 9500. I did run it up to 2860 mhz a few times, but it started getting hotter than I liked, about 55c. I think its a good cpu overall and kind of regret the money I spent on the present FX60. The FX60 does better, of course, but I'm not sure if its enough better to justify the price. Anyway, just trying to say that the 4400+ has a lot of room for overclocking and I think its a good buy.
February 11, 2007 3:11:41 AM

Quote:
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.


they have some weight too them but if you dont move your computer
around(i do all the time) then you shouldnt have any problems.
February 11, 2007 3:23:34 AM

Well decision is made and i ordered the 4400...not saying i will oc it as soon as i get it and i may not see much performance gain from my current 3700 unless it is a multithreaded app. but at least i will now have a good processor to last me for the upcoming games. I cant wait to try out Alan Wake. I ordered the 4400 OEM it was the only one they had at new egg..i also ordered some arctic silver 5 but no hsf i could not reach a decision. I have the stock hsf for my 3700 would this be adequate enough to use for the 4400 if i do not oc?
February 11, 2007 3:29:30 AM

In my opinion, for what that's worth, if you don't overclock the 4400+, then the heatsink off the 3700 would work. I didn't loose much blood on my Zalman 9500, by the way. You just have to be a bit cautious, or wear some gloves if you're really concerned.
February 11, 2007 3:29:44 AM

Quote:
Well decision is made and i ordered the 4400...not saying i will oc it as soon as i get it and i may not see much performance gain from my current 3700 unless it is a multithreaded app. but at least i will now have a good processor to last me for the upcoming games. I cant wait to try out Alan Wake. I ordered the 4400 OEM it was the only one they had at new egg..i also ordered some arctic silver 5 but no hsf i could not reach a decision. I have the stock hsf for my 3700 would this be adequate enough to use for the 4400 if i do not oc?


you now have dualcore :lol: 
on most things you wont see a difference.
even in gaming. as there are almost zero games that use dualcore.
there are games that can but dont, not yet.
so you should be good to go.
and the stock cooler should work fine.

also you shouldnt have too much trouble swapping them.
if any q,s about that let me know.
February 11, 2007 3:35:39 AM

Alright, thanks again sirheck! Its nice to know i can just use my current hsf..i was not looking forward to installing an aftermarket cooler. Ive noticed something, everytime i post with a problem or a question without fail you always post to help lol...Thanks! I also appreciate everyone else that gave their input, it was most helpful.
February 11, 2007 3:39:12 AM

got my 4400+ overclocked to 2.9 Ghz with tuniq tower 120. Load is 48C @ 1.35V.

Go for 4400!!
February 11, 2007 3:43:41 AM

Quote:
Alright, thanks again sirheck! Its nice to know i can just use my current hsf..i was not looking forward to installing an aftermarket cooler. Ive noticed something, everytime i post with a problem or a question without fail you always post to help lol...Thanks! I also appreciate everyone else that gave their input, it was most helpful.


pm me when you get ready to install the x2.
ill tell you the way i did it, and didnt have to reinstall windows.

have heard some have problems switching from single to dualcore
cpu,s. though i havent ***sirheck knocks on wood***
February 11, 2007 4:11:48 AM

Quote:
Alright, thanks again sirheck! Its nice to know i can just use my current hsf..i was not looking forward to installing an aftermarket cooler. Ive noticed something, everytime i post with a problem or a question without fail you always post to help lol...Thanks! I also appreciate everyone else that gave their input, it was most helpful.


pm me when you get ready to install the x2.
ill tell you the way i did it, and didnt have to reinstall windows.

have heard some have problems switching from single to dualcore
cpu,s. though i havent ***sirheck knocks on wood***

lol i would prefer not to reinstall windows, but it wont be the end of the world if i do, my external hd is there for me!... and i will pm you whenever i get ready to install.

Nice accomplishment rjabad, ill bet that thing flies.
February 11, 2007 4:17:25 AM

Quote:
have heard some have problems switching from single to dualcore cpu,s. though i havent ***sirheck knocks on wood***


I was one that had that problem. Got it fixed though with a patch to optimize the dual cores. Never had a problem since then. **Knock on wood myself before Murphy heads my way with a problem**
February 11, 2007 4:19:18 AM

Quote:
**Knock on wood myself before Murphy heads my way with a problem**


murphy is always a comin :lol: 
February 11, 2007 4:34:31 AM

The Zalman you linked to is the exact one I use. Works very well and can be mounted either "with the screws" or "crossways to the screws"--very versatile! I can see where "crossways" could be unpleasant, but "with the screws" isn't an issue. I did purchase the Arctic 64 also, but it wouldn't work with my mobo and with the windowed Nine Hundred case the LED Zalman looks tons better anyway. Very effective.
February 11, 2007 12:34:20 PM

Murphy...Yuck! Well i guess i will have to get over it if i have problems...Well mjam, i may buy an aftermarket HSF later on if i feel like ocing but if my stock hsf will work with no ocing then im just going to use that. I also bought a tube of arctic silver 5 with my proc. so that should help too.
February 11, 2007 12:38:07 PM

normally the processor that costs more is usually the best in this case that fact would be true.
February 11, 2007 12:46:51 PM

Well, from wha ti had read its a toss up..i chose the 4400 because it had more cache and if i was not happy with the performance i could most likely oc it to the 4600 with an aftermarket hsf...and if i cant oc it when i get it, then its not a huge loss. Afterall, im still on socket 939 which is being phased out very quickly. I am planning on upgrading to AMD quadcore whenever AMD comes out with a good chip.
February 11, 2007 12:57:56 PM

hmm, your right. you should get the 4400 since 939 will phase out soon but dual cores are still fairly new.
February 11, 2007 1:05:14 PM

Yeah, they are new, but im trying to futureproof my system using the best logic. This seemed to me to be the best. But everyone has there own opinion, I read many different discussions about this and it really came down to my decision. I may have made a bad decision i may have not, but if i get it and i am happy with the performance then i guess thats all that matters. I had thought baout upgrading my socket to make my computer last longer, but i cant justify having to buy more RAM after i bought 4gb within the past 6 months.
February 11, 2007 1:08:44 PM

wow, 4gb is a lot. i have 2gb in my desktop. i should put 2 more gigs in mines but it wouldn't be necessary because my computer never goes over 1.5 gigs

since you have 4gb of ram you might as well get the best processor which in your case would be the 4400. even though the processor would be the bottleneck in your computer :p  .
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2007 1:11:57 PM

Look at my signature, on air, stock cooler, with a VERY cheap, er inexpensive motherboard. Rock solid. No problems. Been running it for about 6 months.
CPU Idles at about 34c and gets up to 47-49c after running NFS Carbon, or Oblivian for about 30 minutes.
System temp varies from 29c to about 34c. 1 fan "in" fan front, 1 "in" fan plexiglass side panel, 1 "out" fan in back, and of course Power supply fan out.
February 11, 2007 1:12:26 PM

lol yeah, its really nice to have 4gb of RAM when you are playing oblivion. Although its only ddr400 it still performs quite well.
February 11, 2007 1:15:22 PM

Quote:

CPU Idles at about 34c and gets up to 47-49c after running NFS Carbon, or Oblivian for about 30 minutes.


those temps me warm in my room with my c2d w/ stock cooler

oblivion only uses 1.5gigs at the most when i use it.
February 11, 2007 1:19:48 PM

Quote:

CPU Idles at about 34c and gets up to 47-49c after running NFS Carbon, or Oblivian for about 30 minutes.


those temps me warm in my room with my c2d w/ stock cooler

oblivion only uses 1.5gigs at the most when i use it.

I havent checked so i have nothing to say in my defense, but since i am running textures at high everything cranked up with hdr and AA wouldnt that use more RAM? Just a thought but i may be wrong, i would need to look into that for myself to see.
February 11, 2007 1:29:04 PM

could be. post a screenie of your ocmputer using something near 4gb. i have never seen it to be honest.
February 11, 2007 1:30:27 PM

Well, im not necessarily claiming that it will use 4gb, because i dont know. Ill play oblivion and see how much RAM it is taking then post it.
!