X2: 3800 or 4400?

[rf03]

Hey all. I'm building a rig mostly for snappiness, speed, and some casual gaming. Right now, I'm having trouble deciding whether I go for the 3800 or the 4400, double the cache.

How much noticeably better is the 4400 than the 3800? I see that on newegg about equal amounts of people have been buying both, and if it turns out that the 4400 is quite a bit better then I might just pay the extra dollars. Will I notice any performance difference? Along the line maybe?

** I will NOT be OC'ing.

Thanks in advance.

 

[supaidaaman]

you are having the same problem i am.

Is it worth it to spend another $200 for the 4400? From what ive seen the difference in applications is only a few minutes or seconds off. seems like id rather save $200 and wait a little longer.

i wont be overclocking either.

side note: Would the 4400 be waaaay better for gaming than the 3800?

 

[GML3G0]

Well, since no one is answering, I'll take a stab at it...

If you're just using it for everyday use and casual gaming, I don't think the extra 200MHz and cache justify the $xxx increase in price, overclocking or not, for the minimal performance gain, if any, you will see. Get the 3800.

 

[mrkun]

I realize that you're not going to OC, but you should buy an Opteron 165 and OC it anyway. =)

 

[PhattyB]

I would recommend the Opteron 165 over the 3800+. It's 200mhz slower but has twice the cache like the 4400+. Twice the cache should mean it's equal to the 3800+ in most ways.

Third options never hurt, especially if it saves money.

(I know you said you aren't overclocking but for the sake of someone else whom might have your same question) The Opteron 165 easily hits 2.4ghz and mine runs 2.65 stable on both cores (one core can hit 3.0ghz stable!)

 

[harobikes333]

I suggest the 3800 because if you don't want to void the warranty and get the most out of the CPU get the one thats the highest stock speed. also the L2 cache is mainly for games and overall isn't that big of an improvement

 

[Markfw]

They OC about the same, so go with the 3800.

 

[rf03]

I'm not OC'ing though...

The 4400+ name would lead you to think that it's about 15-20% better than a 3800+ ... is that actually the case performance-wise?

harobikes: the 4400+ has the higher clock speed... I assume you meant to suggest the 4400?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: rf03
I'm not OC'ing though...

The 4400+ name would lead you to think that it's about 15-20% better than a 3800+ ... is that actually the case performance-wise?

harobikes: the 4400+ has the higher clock speed... I assume you meant to suggest the 4400?

The 4400+ is 2.2GHz and double the cache. Under the best circumstances, the cache will give you under 5% improvement. Together with the extra 10% of clock speed, that improvement will be about 15.5% according to my calculations.

Whether it's worth it or not would be a simple question if you were willing to overclock... not an extreme overclock, but the standard bump to 2.4GHz, which ALL X2 3800s do fine. In that case, the clock advantage disappears (they OC to about the same level), and you're left with paying 50% more for a 5% improvement.

If you don't overclock, you're paying 50% more for a 15% improvement. Whether or not that's worth it to you, is for you alone to decide.

However, the Opteron 165 is out there, and it reaches 2.4 without any issues on stock cooling AFAIK. And it has 2x1MB cache just like the 4400+.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: rf03
I'm not OC'ing though...

The 4400+ name would lead you to think that it's about 15-20% better than a 3800+ ... is that actually the case performance-wise?

harobikes: the 4400+ has the higher clock speed... I assume you meant to suggest the 4400?

if you not OCing then go with the best in which you can afford, be it the X2 4400+ or X2 3800+. But yeah the 4400+ will perform better due to it having double the L2 cache and running 200Mhz faster, but that comes at a cost. I would personally OC a 3800+ however.

 

[Skott]

Chips are usually 10% better performer than the previous version so your 15%-20% is probably pretty close. Is it worth it? Thats a question only you can answer. It is your money. For the non-overclockers you basically buy the most pcu you can afford. Wether its worth it is a personal decision. Some folks say it is and some say it isnt. Those that say it is generally can readily afford the extra cost and dont mind paying the extra $. Those that say it isnt generally are more cost concious types and wont pay the extra $. There really is no right or wrong to it. If you want the 4400 then get it.

Now if you were going to overclock then the answer I would give would be a Opty 165 or a 3800 and overclock it up to a 4400 or 4800.

 

[rf03]

Okay, thanks for the feedback. About the cache: long-term, will double the cache make a big difference or is it a fairly unimportant thing to worry about?

 

[themusgrat]

No, it is unimportant unless you plan on being a server or something. So get the 3800.

 

[jonspd]

IMO I would go for the 165 or 170 as it has twice the L2 as the 3800x2

 

[the splat in the hat]

4400+ , 4400+, 4400+, BLOWS THAT 3800-........been there done that !

 

[jonspd]

Correct but isnt the 170 the same as the 4400 or is it the 4800?