Upgrade help... Socket 939 4400+ worth it?

[sportwarrior]

Hey everyone... I'm currently running a socket 939 rig with a 3700+, 7800 GTX, and 2 gigs of ram. I've been trying to figure what the best upgrade could be right now... I'd rather not purchase a whole new CPU/mobo/ram combo right now. What I'm really looking at is picking up a 4400+ online for around $130... If I'm not mistaken it would essentially give me a 2nd 3700+ core... I know there's much more to it than that, but the specs seem roughly the same.

I'm also looking at picking up an 8800 GTS 320mb card sometime in the next few months as well...

Now I know there are quite a few posts on subjects like this, but I tried to use the search function and failed... Everytime I typed in "4400+" or "Socket 939" or even anything at all I failed to get a result. All I really need are some quick and dirty answers/opinions...

Question 1 - Is it worth upgrading from a 3700+ to a 4400+? Or would it be better to ride out my current CPU/Mobo/RAM combo for another year or so?

Question 2 - If I indeed got the 4400+, would it improve the performance of the 8800 GTS once purchased over the 3700+? I've seen articles indicated that it would, but most of those had the 4400+ OC'd to 5200+ speeds, which is not something I'm prepared to do quite yet.

Thanks for any help, and I apologize for repeating the topic.

 

[brainysmurf]

In all honesty, you'll probably be disappointed after the switch. I was, when I switched from my 3000+ to a 3800+ last year.

I went from a 1.8 ghz single core to a 2 ghz dual core. This was also an upgrade from an older stepping to a newer stepping with some revisions to the core and a few new extensions.

There was a slight improvement in games and the second core made things more responsive. The greater improvement came when I downloaded AMD's dual core drivers and the latest bios for my MSI motherboard.

Having the dual core made the system more responsive. There's no lag when doing things like there used to be from the antivirus and other programs running in the background.

I was happier when I did a mild overclock (using the software that came with my motherboard). I've been running my 3800+ at 2.2 ghz for over a year now and it's still running along nicely. So ....

Your idea could be a good move. Just don't expect your system to run 80 percent faster, or 50 percent faster, or even 30 percent faster -- except maybe in encoding files.

Most games still don't benefit much from dual cores. So if gaming is a priority, you'll probably be disappointed that the changes is not greater.

If you do a lot of encoding, then sure, you'll probably be pleased.

 

[miribus]

Brainysmurf said it pretty well, though it's hard to give a definite answer without really knowing what a suitable outcome would be for you.
What type of "performance" are you expecting, and what level?
Faster framerates? What? 10%, 20%?

In general more games than not are single core and thus you would notice significantly more performance with the 8800gts 320mb although with that card resolution you play in can make a difference of just how much performance would be gained... either way should be significant.

A dual core would make even single core games smoother, but generally not faster unless the clock is higher for you but if money is a crunch I would get the cheapest dual core I could find and OC it, or just OC your current processor and ride it out a bit longer. There will still be the random chugginess in some games and apps the more stuff you have in the background but you'll survive.

If the question is of "prettyness" and how important that is to you, I'm willing to bet, that if you're happy with res's of 1280 or less, you're probably looking pretty good 80% of the time, even with newer stuff, with a fair amount of options on, with the system you have now.

My GF has a 3800x2 oc'd to 2.5ghz and 2gb of ram and a 256mb 7800GT.
She can play anything, still have it look real nice, and with more than suitable smoothness. With my x1950xtx, I can play in higher res and maybe with AA x4 on, but the difference compared with the money is only important to the purchaser.

That being said, if you're looking to upgrade for the sake of upgrading, don't and wait it out a year, your system will last just fine, granted not at the highest peak of graphical aptitude, but still damn good. Keep in mind the 7600gt is still a solid card and the 7800gtx is better still than that.

If upgrading a year from now, regardless of what you get, is what you're thinking just stick it out IMO.

 

[speedbird]

I have a 4400+ CPU with a 7800GT card and performance is good. Dual Core does improve general system responsiveness, but there is only a handful of games currently available that make use of both cores. Although when a game is designed for Dual core or an older game receives a patch for multi core it really does boast performance. I play Flight simulator X with the SP1 patch and it's just so much smoother now its using both cores.

 

[swifty_morgan]

I have them both. Unless you have the need to do two or three things at once, I wouldn't waste my money. There is little, if any, performance gain. An fx60 isn't worth it right now. Save up and get newer hardware.

Having said that, I'll never buy another single core chip for anything. I do put both cores to use at this time, and will be getting quad core on next purchase.

 

[dj_taboo]

What mobo do you have?
A 4400 should be pretty OC-able. From what i hear it should be able to go up to 2.6ghz easy, which will give you net performance of a stock fx60.
I went from a 3800 single core to a 4600 dual core last year. There isn't much of a performance difference until you start multi tasking, or have multi threaded apps. Some games will use the extra core; processes, like sound processing are run on the second core also. The biggest improvement will be found when running background tasks, like brainysmurf said. After my upgrade, i can play FEAR and download files or run a virus scan at the same time.

 

[sportwarrior]

Thanks for all the info, fellas.

I guess I'm looking for an overall system boost... I want to delay a complete upgrade as long as I can... I don't want to have to buy a whole new CPU/mobo/RAM setup all that much right now... I suppose, though, if I were looking to pawn off the existing parts in order to pay for the new parts the sooner I do so, the better....

In any case, I really think I'm just gonna look at upgrading the CPU in hopes that it lasts me another 1-2 years before worrying about an entire upgrade.

I'm currently running an eVGA nForce 4 mainboard... not sure if it's a NF41 or NF43. I'm also running OCZ PC3200 Dual Channel Platinum DDR400 RAM, but am unsure of what response timings I'm currently running at (probably stock, I haven't messed with that stuff in a while)...

Specifically, I do a wide range of things... Photo and video editing, some music conversion, that kind of stuff. I'm also concerned with gaming performance, although not obsessed with it... I'd mainly like to get in step with the dual-core crowd, as that was my plan when I first built this machine (bought the 3700+ san diego on the cheap in August 05 with thoughts of upgrading to dual core)... So while I'll definitely be looking for a boost in gaming performance, I'll also be measuring the boosts with video/photo/sound editing, downloading, background tasks, and everything else a dual core can benefit.

 

[m25]

Yoes, it actually IS a second 3700+ core but you've got to get some program to know how to use both, otherwise, it's just stupidly spent money. Video/Audio encoding software, rendering and scientific in general as well as very few new games DO BENEFIT from multicore CPUs. If your software does not use them, multitasking/megatasking/background processes etc, are not reasons to get a dual core, so you'd better stick with what you have in this case.

 

[brainysmurf]

I'll add just one more comment on a different tact.

Remember that AMD is not producing any more Socket 939 X2 CPUs. So if you're ever gonna upgrade, then now is probably the time to do it while there is still a (somewhat) plentiful supply.

On the other hand, you'll be able to upgrade your video card at any time. So you could get the dual core cpu now and get a faster video card (if you decided you need to) later on.

I agree with a previous poster that you could possibly reach 2.6 ghz with an overclock.

 

[sportwarrior]

Brainy, I've been figuring all that into my internal debate over the whole upgrade issue... Seeing as how 939 chip production has ceased, prices are not going to get any cheaper. I figure now is the optimum time to purchase a CPU upgrade if I want to extend the life of this particular machine. Over on OC Forums I'm getting a lot of advice to go with the Opty 170 or 175 for overclocking purposes... Specifically the 170 will supposedly work fairly well, but I'd be hesitant to get a chip whose stock speeds are actually lower than my current one.

I'm thinking that the X2 4400+ is my best option... For those of you saying I could probably crank it up to 2.6ghz... are we talking stable speeds here? I'd like to get the machine tweaked to a level that offers improved performance but also one that requires very little maintenance or observation. I have a Thermaltake CPU fan and heat sync as opposed to the stock stuff, and I'd like to refrain from buying any additional cooling components.

Essientially I guess I'd like to know if I can crank up the X2 to 2.6ghz speeds using stock voltage and near-stock cooling, I guess...

 

[speedbird]

I think it depends system to system how a chip over clocks. My 4400+ 939 does not overclock that well and the max I can reach is 2.4Ghz, but any further even with safe acceptable Voltage increases it fails prime 95. I'm not that bothered though because performance is still good.

 

[ethel]

I think you should go with the Opty 170 - it's a pretty much guaranteed overclock to 2.7GHz, and a lot of people get to 3GHz with a small voltage bump.

However, I am a little biased - I've got an Opteron 165@2.7GHz stock voltage - it runs very nicely, totally stable.

 

[dj_taboo]

I think it depends system to system how a chip over clocks. My 4400+ 939 does not overclock that well and the max I can reach is 2.4Ghz, but any further even with safe acceptable Voltage increases it fails prime 95. I'm not that bothered though because performance is still good.

Really?
My 4600 has a lazy OC with a cheap mobo, but it does 2.6ghz. Sport's nforce4 mobo should be able to muster up some speed in these old-ish cpu's.

 

[sirheck]

I have both of the same cpu,s and didnt see much if any improvment.
But i dont encode video or that kind of shistuff.

But you would have a dualcore though.

 

[vic20]

http://freespace.virgin.net/roy.longbottom/#anchorSSE3DNow

I think you should go with the Opty 170 - it's a pretty much guaranteed overclock to 2.7GHz, and a lot of people get to 3GHz with a small voltage bump.

However, I am a little biased - I've got an Opteron 165@2.7GHz stock voltage - it runs very nicely, totally stable.

Yeah, the 170 OCs WAY better. Mine is at 2.9. It will load Windows and run stable at 3, but I found out it was generating errors at that speed.

I've tried a dozen 4400s at work, and while most will run at 2.6, they'd all actually generate errors above 2.5. My buddy was using a 4800 @ 2.6 for months. Started crashing recently and I found it was generating errors.

I used this program to check for errors...

http://freespace.virgin.net/roy.longbottom/#anchorSSE3DNow

Run the Soakmp.bat for Dual cores

 

[sportwarrior]

Lots of votes for the Opty 170... It's certainly cheaper... I think I'm just hesitant to get back into the OC game... I haven't even been gaming all that much recently (as in firing up a game once or twice a month) so I'm not even sure why I care. It's definitely tempting to get a chip and crank it up to fx-60 speeds, though. It'd be quite a swan song for my 939 set up if I could ride out a final $115 investment for another two years...

How much better is the Opty 170 than the 175 at reaching higher speeds on stock voltage? And how about overall OC ceiling?

 

[vic20]

Lots of votes for the Opty 170... It's certainly cheaper... I think I'm just hesitant to get back into the OC game... I haven't even been gaming all that much recently (as in firing up a game once or twice a month) so I'm not even sure why I care. It's definitely tempting to get a chip and crank it up to fx-60 speeds, though. It'd be quite a swan song for my 939 set up if I could ride out a final $115 investment for another two years...

How much better is the Opty 170 than the 175 at reaching higher speeds on stock voltage? And how about overall OC ceiling?

Those Optys are actually the same Toledo core as the 44/4800, but they are binned better. Like getting a "golden sample" chip.

The 175 has a higher multiplier, so its just easier for the board to OC it. Just like comparing an E66/6700

 

[sportwarrior]

I think I'm gonna take a few warmup tosses and try to OC my 3700+ a little... Probably best to try that before dropping a new chip in, anyway. At this point it looking like I'll try the Opty 170, but it's tough considering I've had my eye on the X2 4400+ for so long.

I'm also beginning to realize that, regardless of what direction I take, I'm most likely going to have to redo my system cooling. It runs a little hot at stock speeds, so I don't know how much realistic OCing I'm gonna get with my current setup.

 

[spanner_razor]

The 4400 is a good investment for the later 8800gts as it will run quite a bit better with a dual core chip compared to the 3700. I myself went from a 3700 to a 4600 and no the performance difference wasn't stellar but the second core will come in handy in the future so it's worth it if you can get it cheap enough. Most games these days are gpu limited, I'm not planning to change to AM2 for a while as it's too much hassle and quite frankly games just don't use your cpu enough.

Some benchmarks for your delectation:

3700 machine 3dmark score of - 2932
4600 machine 3dmark score of - 3621

The fps tests only went up by around 1 each but the cpu scores doubled. Admittedly 3dmark is a poor indicator of real world performance but you don't want to later get an 8800gts and have it really limited by the 3700. Up to yourself, if you've got the cash and want to hold off a major upgrade do it but it might be better to pickup a cheap am2 motherboard, some ram and a 3800 dual core X2 instead.

 

[choirbass]

TBH, any dual core will work really (especially if youre intending to OC at all)... for s939, my X2 3800+ OCs to 2.71 stable with a budget ecs mobo (but overheats due to the voltage increases necessary), so i just have it running at 2.4 stock voltage, so the memory is in sync as well.

you can try voltage reductions too, while OCing, if you really want to keep temperatures down, and still have a performance increase (though not as much most likely)

 

[DaveElls]

unforetunately my opteron 175 only got to 2.5 without any errors. Although I barely had to bump the vcore for that. After 2.5 I seem to get errors no matter what vcore I try.

 

[choirbass]

that could be due to several things though, mobo, memory, psu, cpu... im less inclined to think your opteron is limited in its OC to 2.5, so much as other components might not be up to the task... possibly

im sure youve changed settings enough to find out what works... but if you havent, you could try reducing your htt multiplier to 3x, memory speed from 200 down to 133, or 100 even (though no guarantee of being able to boot when its that low)... increase the voltage going to memory to 2.79v (higher is up to you, i dont though personally, i just stay around 2.63v currently)... relax memory timings some... ...increase cpu voltage some, maybe +.25 - +.5v... but not above 1.5v, if you go more than +.5v (risk frying then)... if you find a stable combination that doesnt endanger your hardware (voltages primarily), you can fine tune settings then

thats just what i do anyhow, to find the highest possible OC, then start over and see how much i can work up to it and tune settings while remaining stable... orthos works pretty well for testing

 

[sportwarrior]

I'm just not prepared to go the whole CPU/Mobo/RAM route... I didn't really invest all that much in the mobo or the CPU, but I probably spent a little more on the RAM than I should have two years ago and would like the overall investment to last a little longer.

If I can get an Opty 170 up to 2.6ghz I think I will be fine. I'd love to be able to just pop something in for a performance boost, but I know it's gonna take some tweaking and OCing to get there. Again, I'd like to get a chip with stock speeds that equal my 3700+, but if the 170 is going to give me an easy 2.6ghz OC then it may be my best option.

 

[spanner_razor]

Probably the best bet, it's a bit annoying that the 939 chipset has been discontinued as there are still plenty of people who would buy the chips if they were still available, the ram difference between an am2 and 939 chip are negligible anyway, in some cases the 939 is actually faster.

 

[sportwarrior]

Gotta agree on that one... It's rather inconvenient that they're constantly pushing the socket standards forward, but that's the nature of the business I guess..

In any event, I've come across a new problem... I'm currently evaluating my system to see if I could possibly overclock my 3700+ for now... Long story short, my CPU temp is hovering around 55C and my system temp around 45C... I used to think those were in the normal range, but now I can't help but think they're way too high. I have an upgraded heat sync and fan on my CPU, too, so I'm not sure why the temp is so high.

Is this normal? It doesn't seem as if OCing is a viable option as long as my stock speeds are running temps this high...