AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: x-2 939 cpu's 4400 or 4600 better?
Topic Summary:
Created On: 10/28/2006 11:01 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 10/28/2006 11:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zucca
Member

Posts: 72
Joined: 10/28/2006

Is a 4400 at 2.2 going to be as good as a 4600 at 2.4 because of the bigger cache sizes? 4400 has a full mb for each core while the 4600 has only 1 mb in total. Is the double sized l 2 cache going to be more important for me then the slight increase in hertz?
 10/29/2006 10:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
MG37221
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Joined: 02/08/2004

quote:

Originally posted by: zucca
Is a 4400 at 2.2 going to be as good as a 4600 at 2.4 because of the bigger cache sizes? 4400 has a full mb for each core while the 4600 has only 1 mb in total. Is the double sized l 2 cache going to be more important for me then the slight increase in hertz?



Neither is actually "better", as both are very fine CPUs. I have a 4400 in the form of an Opteron 175. It is an awesome processor! I don't do any overclocking. I also have a 4800 in my other PC. It too is really sweet. Both are Toledo cores.

But to answer your question, the extra cache helps primarily in games and some multimedia, which I don't really do much with. I'd say that the 4600 will be overall faster than the 4400 with it being a dead heat in some ganes due to the additional cache. There is an excellent article here, which really shows what I'm talking about.

In all honesty, you can't go wrong either way. Both processors are excellent, if you really do multitask, both should be plenty fast enough though I'm now prompted to inquire: What processor are you using now? I ask this because if you are currently using a 3800 or a 4000 single core, until you've used the new processor for a while, neither of the 4400 or 4600 will actually seem any faster at all, though the more you multitask, the more throughput you will see and only then will you realize the power of these awesome processors.

 10/29/2006 10:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zucca
Member

Posts: 72
Joined: 10/28/2006

quote:

Originally posted by: MG37221
Neither is actually "better", as both are very fine CPUs. I have a 4400 in the form of an Opteron 175. It is an awesome processor! I don't do any overclocking. I also have a 4800 in my other PC. It too is really sweet. Both are Toledo cores.

But to answer your question, the extra cache helps primarily in games and some multimedia, which I don't really do much with. I'd say that the 4600 will be overall faster than the 4400 with it being a dead heat in some ganes due to the additional cache. There is an excellent article here, which really shows what I'm talking about.

In all honesty, you can't go wrong either way. Both processors are excellent, if you really do multitask, both should be plenty fast enough though I'm now prompted to inquire: What processor are you using now? I ask this because if you are currently using a 3800 or a 4000 single core, until you've used the new processor for a while, neither of the 4400 or 4600 will actually seem any faster at all, though the more you multitask, the more throughput you will see and only then will you realize the power of these awesome processors.



Im using a 3500 athlon right now. I have a 7600 gs pny verto video card, x-fi sound card which takes most video and sound stuff to their own little processors, plus 2 1/2 gigs of ram running dual channel....But I like to watch MLB TV and was wondering if cache or stronger processor would help more. I am leaning towards the 4600 because its same price roughly and actually in essencedouble my l 2 cache (just on 2 cores) and quadruples my l
1 cache....I think the gain in processor power will help more. Considering my off board video, my off board sound and my high speed net, I think I just up my cpu strength to do more...I go into message boards WHILE watching the games and this CPU will probably just seperate the workload nice enough. Does that sound about right?
 10/29/2006 11:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
MG37221
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Joined: 02/08/2004

quote:

Originally posted by: zucca
Im using a 3500 athlon right now. I have a 7600 gs pny verto video card, x-fi sound card which takes most video and sound stuff to their own little processors, plus 2 1/2 gigs of ram running dual channel....But I like to watch MLB TV and was wondering if cache or stronger processor would help more. I am leaning towards the 4600 because its same price roughly and actually in essencedouble my l 2 cache (just on 2 cores) and quadruples my l
1 cache....I think the gain in processor power will help more. Considering my off board video, my off board sound and my high speed net, I think I just up my cpu strength to do more...I go into message boards WHILE watching the games and this CPU will probably just seperate the workload nice enough. Does that sound about right?



In that case, the 4600 would seem faster. I went from a 3500 to the 175 and was initially a bit disappointed thinking that I'd be seeing a serious performance enhancement. Ironically, I did see a serious performance enhancement. But it wasn't in the way that I was expecting. The 4400 still runs at 2.2GHz, same as the 3500 but, I actually had essentially two of them (2*3700 to be more precise). It took me a while to understand what I actually had and now, it's been a little more than a year I suppose and I still couldn't be more pleased. Lots of power, especially for multitasking. I played FEAR without a hitch and at the time, that was a CPU eater!

Either processor would do you very nicely since both are dual core. The 4600, running at 2.4GHz would seem like a genuine upgrade as opposed to the 4400 but honestly, you can't go wrong with either one. They are both awesome processors. I didn't get my 4800 until the recent price drop <$300, so if you can, that would be your best solution. Actually, I'm struggling to resist the Opteron185 at ~$400. Basically an FX-60 only cheaper to replace my 4800 (though it is effectively brand new!. I'm not disappointed with the 4800 but I do like these Opties! I will resist however. I've everything I need.

So yes, either would do you very nicely. The 4600 is a bit faster than the 4400 as these processors scale very nicely.
 10/30/2006 12:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
AM2_GAINWARD
Senior Member

Posts: 1774
Joined: 06/03/2006

quote:

Originally posted by: zucca
Is a 4400 at 2.2 going to be as good as a 4600 at 2.4 because of the bigger cache sizes? 4400 has a full mb for each core while the 4600 has only 1 mb in total. Is the double sized l 2 cache going to be more important for me then the slight increase in hertz?


http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

both r good , sometimes , 4400 is better and sometimes 4600
 10/30/2006 05:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zucca
Member

Posts: 72
Joined: 10/28/2006

quote:

Originally posted by: MG37221
In that case, the 4600 would seem faster. I went from a 3500 to the 175 and was initially a bit disappointed thinking that I'd be seeing a serious performance enhancement. Ironically, I did see a serious performance enhancement. But it wasn't in the way that I was expecting. The 4400 still runs at 2.2GHz, same as the 3500 but, I actually had essentially two of them (2*3700 to be more precise). It took me a while to understand what I actually had and now, it's been a little more than a year I suppose and I still couldn't be more pleased. Lots of power, especially for multitasking. I played FEAR without a hitch and at the time, that was a CPU eater!

Either processor would do you very nicely since both are dual core. The 4600, running at 2.4GHz would seem like a genuine upgrade as opposed to the 4400 but honestly, you can't go wrong with either one. They are both awesome processors. I didn't get my 4800 until the recent price drop <$300, so if you can, that would be your best solution. Actually, I'm struggling to resist the Opteron185 at ~$400. Basically an FX-60 only cheaper to replace my 4800 (though it is effectively brand new!. I'm not disappointed with the 4800 but I do like these Opties! I will resist however. I've everything I need.

So yes, either would do you very nicely. The 4600 is a bit faster than the 4400 as these processors scale very nicely.


I went with the 4600, I have most of the ideas how to install with hotfies and stuff, My bios are updated and I got the athlon optimizer sitting on desktop waiting,,,along with the drivers. Hopefully I can put this in and not wind up reformatting. My only question is,,,do I reun the programs with my old chip, then install the new CPU or just stick it in run it on one core until I get fixes put in?
 10/30/2006 08:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
MG37221
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Joined: 02/08/2004

quote:

Originally posted by: zucca
I went with the 4600, I have most of the ideas how to install with hotfies and stuff, My bios are updated and I got the athlon optimizer sitting on desktop waiting,,,along with the drivers. Hopefully I can put this in and not wind up reformatting. My only question is,,,do I reun the programs with my old chip, then install the new CPU or just stick it in run it on one core until I get fixes put in?



If your BIOS is updated, just swap the CPUs. Your OS (Windows or Linux) will be the determing factor in what you need to do to be sure that both cores are recognized and utilized. With XP, the OS saw the new CPU and automatically loaded the drivers (restart required) when I upgraded my son's 3500 to an X2 3800. I run Linux and only needed to load the SMP kernal.

You made a good choice. I think you'll be pleased especially after you've used it for a while and notice how smooth multitasking becomes.
 10/30/2006 08:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Xtreeme
Senior Member

Posts: 2705
Joined: 05/04/2006

quote:

Originally posted by: zucca
Is a 4400 at 2.2 going to be as good as a 4600 at 2.4 because of the bigger cache sizes? 4400 has a full mb for each core while the 4600 has only 1 mb in total. Is the double sized l 2 cache going to be more important for me then the slight increase in hertz?




4600 will be fast since the large l2 cache of 4400 wont be a help really. These a64's have a really efficient pipeline that doesnt rely on l2 cache to bail it out on far too many branch mispredicts uhmmm (like p4 does).

XP was same look at barton the l2 added very little. I dont think that will change till the architecture takes a major change. Well see if k8l is the same.
 10/31/2006 12:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zucca
Member

Posts: 72
Joined: 10/28/2006

quote:

Originally posted by: MG37221
If your BIOS is updated, just swap the CPUs. Your OS (Windows or Linux) will be the determing factor in what you need to do to be sure that both cores are recognized and utilized. With XP, the OS saw the new CPU and automatically loaded the drivers (restart required) when I upgraded my son's 3500 to an X2 3800. I run Linux and only needed to load the SMP kernal.

You made a good choice. I think you'll be pleased especially after you've used it for a while and notice how smooth multitasking becomes.


Thanks for the help. I hope that with the 2 1/2 gigs of ram (corsair high end stuff not bargain) The 7600 nividia card overclocked and running great , Gets 7900 type ratings on pc pit stop....A 4 millisecond 19 inch lcd with a 1400 to 1 contrast and decent resolutions...And the x-fi platnum sound caed (which may be trouble with a dual core because of drivers issues) and all the other junk I did here...that I can get decent MLB tv picture next year. It was ok this year (video card really helped) But i want better.I have all the sound and video being processed off board by the cards, so i should really have quite a zippy little machine here. Once its set up, Im going to break out my old pentium 2 war machine and try to get it blowing smoke with a evil overclock....I cooked three mobos with one CPU...a pentium 2 that just will not burn up. I love pushing it and got it jerry rigged to reset itself everytime it shuts down by setting jumpers on the board..LOL lots of fun..It shuts down from overheat...clicks off and just reboots itself with out having to open it up and reset the jumpers. I used to have to reset the cmos each time,,,,so i just left it on the reset position and its just restting itself! I dont overclock this puter because of all the fairly high end stuff I got attached to it...I dont wanna smoke my sound, video or other stuff.I understand i gotta put my bios on defaults so the Puter senses the new hardware when I put in new CPU,,,I guess thats what I heard! Then I put in the CPU, and artic silver...Then boot her up and hope I no reformatting! After that I load the drivers. I may do a windows repair before I start in case I deleted any thing the new CPU needs. (I run cpu cleaning programs that might strip out unused stuff)
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information