If I were to get a new CPU, in your humble opinions, do you think the 4200+ is worth the $40 price premium over the 3800+?
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
Select the two CPUs you want to compare and they will be marked in red.
Interesting... I have a 3800x2 :D I am curious on upgrading as well.. that 4400x2 looks nice :D
3800 @ 174 = 0.045 Cents Per MHz
4200 @ 214 = 0.050 Cents Per MHz
So its a cost difference of .005 per MHz. (Approx)
I like that site, quite nice.
Quote from: Adams on July 25, 2006, 10:45:44 AM
Interesting... I have a 3800x2 :D I am curious on upgrading as well.. that 4400x2 looks nice :D
Actually, if I were willing to pay the money, I'd get the 4600+ X2 over the 4400+ X2, since its only $5 more expensive. You loose some cache, but from what I've seen the cache doesn't make that much difference in most applications anyways. Of course, the're out of stock on the 939 4600+, so if you're coming to Frag and want to upgarde in time for that, its not really an option.
QuoteYou loose some cache, but from what I've seen the cache doesn't make that much difference in most applications anyways.
Um, no. The cache makes the most difference, even more than more MegaHurtz does. More Cache == Better. (so long as it doesn't go overboard, and increase the latency :0)
Dumping large amounts of cache on the CPU die is very costly but it is a big performance item. It was the main feature of the Pentium PRO CPU when it was released.. It is also one of the features that sets the Xeon server CPUs apart from the desktop ones.
Cache is memory runing at the same speed as the CPU core.. when the cache is full the CPU must store work in regular RAM or simply wait for Cache to become available.. It keeps the CPU working at a more optimal pace.
Quote from: Lazybones on July 25, 2006, 02:29:45 PM
Dumping large amounts of cache on the CPU die is very costly but it is a big performance item. It was the main feature of the Pentium PRO CPU when it was released.. It is also one of the features that sets the Xeon server CPUs apart from the desktop ones.
Cache is memory runing at the same speed as the CPU core.. when the cache is full the CPU must store work in regular RAM or simply wait for Cache to become available.. It keeps the CPU working at a more optimal pace.
Ok, my mistake. New question then: would the extra cache be enough to justify the $60 price premium of the 4400+ over the 4200+, given they both have the same CPU clock speed? And would the extra 200 mhz speed in the 4600+ help balance out its performance against the $5 cheaper 4400+?
Quotewould the extra 200 mhz speed in the 4600+ help balance out its performance against the $5 cheaper 4400+?
I'd expect the 4400 to perform many tasks better than the 4600.
i just cant justify going from a 3800X2 to a 4600X2 :P Its like...a baby step, i haven't even come close to hitting the 100% mark on what I currently have, if anything my hard drives are holding me back and I'm already running the new seagates in RAID0
I think for once I'm good, nothing do I have I want to upgrade.
Athlon 3800X2
ASUS A8NSLI Deluxe
2GB Mushkin DDR4000
2x eVGA 7900GT Superclocked
2x 320GB Seagate SATA2
The highest X2 939 they have left is 3800+, so that solves my dilemma.
Keep in mind that cache size affects speed differently between AMD and Intel CPU cores - Intel gets a much bigger boost from added cache than AMD does. Going from a 512K / core cache to 1MB / core cache on a A64 X2 chip will give you 10 -> 15% performance improvement - generally you're better off to go with a higher clock-speed than higher cache when picking a X2 chip.