TankGuys
Golden Member
- Jun 3, 2005
- 1,080
- 0
- 0
I'm sorry to ressurect a dead thread...
But we've been having this debate internally the last few days. We've all pretty much decided the 4200 is really a better "value" than the 4400. It's just plain math: the extra cache will maybe give a 3-5% performance boost, but it's at least 10% more expensive than the 4200. Based on that, it's really hard to argue that the 4400 is a better deal. Yes, double the cache is nice, and yes it's "only $50 more" but based on the boost in performance vs the boost in price, I like the 4200 now.
But we've been having this debate internally the last few days. We've all pretty much decided the 4200 is really a better "value" than the 4400. It's just plain math: the extra cache will maybe give a 3-5% performance boost, but it's at least 10% more expensive than the 4200. Based on that, it's really hard to argue that the 4400 is a better deal. Yes, double the cache is nice, and yes it's "only $50 more" but based on the boost in performance vs the boost in price, I like the 4200 now.