Did YOU Go From an Intel P4 to an A64 X2 4400+? I'd like to hear from YOU!

Scroatdog

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
1,432
Ok, title says it all.

I've been reading the reviews and have determined that the 4400+ is the best bang-for-the-buck feature and performance-wise, although NONE have come down in price yet. I plan to do a complete rig overhaul after the R520 comes out, so I'll be moving to PCI-Express, will need a new CPU, mobo, and PSU as well.

I'd like to hear from the Intel guys that made the switch over to this chip, and what youre experiences/lessons learned are. Love it? Hate it? Can't tell the difference? The rig in my sig will be retired, and the 4400+ (if I go this route) will be watercooled with my current setup of Swiftech MCW-5002 (would need AMD bracket), DD Maze4 GPU, Bonneville double heatercore with two Panaflo M1A 120mm fans, Swiftech MCP-600, and a DD acrylic res. I would O/C the 4400+ to the highest stable clocks I can get...........and LEAVE it there.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.
 
4200 is the best bang/buck for the X2. It's $100-200 less than a 4400 and performs almost the same. A dual core doesn't need 1mb of cache per core since any bottleneck that extracache alleviates is totally taken care of by the presence of dual channel memory and two cores. You wouldn't feel the difference between the 4200 and 4400 at all.

Just my $.02
 
VERY interesting point, do you have any benchmarks to back this up? I think thats a very interesting point indeed. Almost enough to convince me to ignore the 4400+
 
Scroatdog said:
Ok, title says it all.

I've been reading the reviews and have determined that the 4400+ is the best bang-for-the-buck feature and performance-wise, although NONE have come down in price yet. I plan to do a complete rig overhaul after the R520 comes out, so I'll be moving to PCI-Express, will need a new CPU, mobo, and PSU as well.

I'd like to hear from the Intel guys that made the switch over to this chip, and what youre experiences/lessons learned are. Love it? Hate it? Can't tell the difference? The rig in my sig will be retired, and the 4400+ (if I go this route) will be watercooled with my current setup of Swiftech MCW-5002 (would need AMD bracket), DD Maze4 GPU, Bonneville double heatercore with two Panaflo M1A 120mm fans, Swiftech MCP-600, and a DD acrylic res. I would O/C the 4400+ to the highest stable clocks I can get...........and LEAVE it there.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.


i had a P4 3.2E OC to 4ghz and while there is a small difference when you run lots of apps at once .. it feels faster then the P4 cause its crunching better numbers faster .. also the fact that even though my 3000+ venice is OC to 2.6ghz its idle temp is 28C (on water) while for my P4 OC'd its idle temp was 44 .. so i don't think you will notice a huge improvement.
 
Patman said:
VERY interesting point, do you have any benchmarks to back this up? I think thats a very interesting point indeed. Almost enough to convince me to ignore the 4400+

Homer, who got a 4400+, refuses to send me benchmarks of it for some reason. I guess he doesnt want to contribute to science.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=219&num=1

Single core, but, here you can see that cache helps you less than this much.
 
If you get one, get the 4400+. You can always increase the clock speed but you can't increase the amount of cache.
 
Don't listen to baron, as he's the only one around here silly enough to get a 7800GTX but pair it with the slowest dual-core. :p Silly barons.
 
kick@ss said:
If you get one, get the 4400+. You can always increase the clock speed but you can't increase the amount of cache.

Because the extra L2 cache helps so much.

We're talking about Athlon 64's, not Pentium 4's, guys.
 
robberbaron said:
Because the extra L2 cache helps so much.
qft.. even with single core, the difference in cache is mostly a "responsiveness" thing. now that it's dual core.. what's the point? ;)
 
GamePC did some comparisons of all 4 duel cores here. Oddly enough the only benchs that show any significant advantage for having more cache are the gaming ones, but how often do games like farcry and HL2 end up CPU bottlenecked? (if you answered "often" you have a way better video card then me ;) )
 
Right now a 4200 is as much overkill for me as a 4400 is...wacky stuff though that the price gap is hitting 100-200 instead of the 40 or so on AMD's lot prices. Been a couple nice deals on the 4400s lately though so maybe it'll settle down.

My games don't end up CPU bottlenecked because I have a 2.7GHz Venice...and yes, I previously had a P4. I can keep right up with my old habits of watching a video on one monitor and playing a game on another same as I did with hyperthreading, no problems whatsoever. Media Player Classic is screwy if I don't give it above normal priority just so it can get a CPU cycle in edgewise when it wants one, but both apps run perfectly smooth side by side with my usual assortment of crap in the background. Even my 6800GT wasn't quite perfect in GW, although I didn't notice it wasn't until after I installed my 7800GTX. BTW 1920x1200 on a 24" LCD with transparent supersampling, while being perfectly smooth, I'd say I don't have many bottlenecks anywhere. X2 would mean I don't have to launch MPC at above normal, but since it runs just fine with a small tweak I don't really see what I'd DO with another core.
 
robberbaron said:
Homer, who got a 4400+, refuses to send me benchmarks of it for some reason. I guess he doesnt want to contribute to science.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=219&num=1

Single core, but, here you can see that cache helps you less than this much.

Dude, there aren't enough benchmarks on that page to even bother looking. If your going to look at L2 cache comparisons then you gotta look at alot of benchmarks. I'd like to see alot of different application benchmarks.

Here are few good comparisons with different L2 cache sizes.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32498

And if you can get a 4400+ in the $600 or less range i would definitely take it over the 4200+ because the 4200+ isn't going to be found for much less. How much did you pay for your 4200+? I payed $599 for my retail 4400+ and i bet it wasn't that much more :p.
 
Ok. Thank's everyone for the replies.

Now.................................

Is there anyone who has gone from a P4 to an X2 4400+ out there, who can answer the questions in my first post??? :p
 
Scroatdog said:
Ok. Thank's everyone for the replies.

Now.................................

Is there anyone who has gone from a P4 to an X2 4400+ out there, who can answer the questions in my first post??? :p

i will let you know in a couple of days, i'm just waiting for my case to arrive.
here's the specs:

X2 4400+
BFG 7800GTX
Turbo Cool 510 series
A8N SLi Premium
2x1gig of Ballistix Tracer
74 Gig raptor
NEC DL DVD Burner
XP-120 (i'm hoping to this get from fryz today)

i'm coming from P4 the one on my sig.
 
went from a P4 [email protected] northwood to my X2 4400. i have to say the difference is stunning! i have been thinking about switching to AMD for a while now, and after the dual core showed up i knew it was time. there arent a lot of applications for the normal gamer/multi tasker (music,vent, paintshopt) YET. but in the coming year many game designers will take the new dual core cpu's into account. THEN the difference will be very apparent. i went with the 4400 because of A) the 1 mb L2 B) the easiness of overclocking it to 4800 speeds and beyond. C) more and more multi tasking in my immediate future! the extra 512 of L2 might not be neede at the moment. but what about in the future? what about in a year or so when new games and apps come out that can take advantage of it. i think in the long run, if you want to be ontop of the game, go with the 4400 and O/C upto 2.6 on air or higher with water. you will have an outstanding performing CPU that will be relevant for a good while. i will NEVER go back to INTEL. i got nothing against INTEL, i am just floored by the capacity of my 4400! i simply am IN LOVE WITH IT. if it could cook dinner, i would marry it!

Athlon 64 X2 4400@ 2.6 Ghz
Asus A8N-SLI Premium
BFG 7800GTX OC
2X 1 gig CRUCIAL BALLISTIX PC4000
Silverstone Zeus 650 Watt PSU
Yada Yada Yada
 
Scroatdog said:
Is there anyone who has gone from a P4 to an X2 4400+ out there, who can answer the questions in my first post??? :p

I went from a P4 to a Venice 3000+, and it kicked the P4 in the nuts.

Unless you're doing some pretty heavy stuff the second core is probably just a luxury.
 
Sir,

I am in the Same situation you are. I have a P4C and really am thinking about the X2. I get off deployment in roughly a week give or take so its about that time to make my decision. However, I really still want a Dual Core Intel System. (I know, I know). I am not sure why. I know that Architecturally (sp?) the Dual Core Athlon X2 is superior. But I still am drawn to Get an Intel Chip, Intel Chipset and good Asus Board. Sigh what to do....
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Sir,

I am in the Same situation you are. I have a P4C and really am thinking about the X2. I get off deployment in roughly a week give or take so its about that time to make my decision. However, I really still want a Dual Core Intel System. (I know, I know). I am not sure why. I know that Architecturally (sp?) the Dual Core Athlon X2 is superior. But I still am drawn to Get an Intel Chip, Intel Chipset and good Asus Board. Sigh what to do....

Brand loyalty goes out the window with my dollar. Just get the best quality performing gear at whatever price point your willing to spend. In this case it looks like that's an X2 ;)
 
burningrave101 said:
Dude, there aren't enough benchmarks on that page to even bother looking. If your going to look at L2 cache comparisons then you gotta look at alot of benchmarks. I'd like to see alot of different application benchmarks.

Here are few good comparisons with different L2 cache sizes.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32498

And if you can get a 4400+ in the $600 or less range i would definitely take it over the 4200+ because the 4200+ isn't going to be found for much less. How much did you pay for your 4200+? I payed $599 for my retail 4400+ and i bet it wasn't that much more :p.


I guess a 4200+ shipped for $527 isn't significantly cheaper than a 4400+?

That benchmark showed one application have a major benefit: Half Life 2 at a really low resolution. Wow, I am so impressed! So how again does the cache help when you're running the game on a monitor larger than 14"?
 
well, by the time the R520 comes out, I expect we will be seeing socket M2/whatever intel is offering, along with the 65nm drop, and possibly even quad core opterons. I don't think you will be able to use a purchasing decision made now, for a purchase six months later (or whenever the r520 comes out). Seriously, if you aren't buying right now, I would simply evaluate your situation come r520, which likely will include DDR2 from AMD and 65nm.
 
mikelz85 said:
well, by the time the R520 comes out, I expect we will be seeing socket M2/whatever intel is offering, along with the 65nm drop, and possibly even quad core opterons. I don't think you will be able to use a purchasing decision made now, for a purchase six months later (or whenever the r520 comes out). Seriously, if you aren't buying right now, I would simply evaluate your situation come r520, which likely will include DDR2 from AMD and 65nm.

The first M2 chips will be 90nm. The Windsor and Orleans. Fab36 isn't yet ready. It probably wont be until Rev "G" or Rev "H" of the A64 until we see the 65nm stuff.
 
robberbaron said:
The first M2 chips will be 90nm. The Windsor and Orleans. Fab36 isn't yet ready.
but by the time the r520 is out, a ton of new stuff on the CPU end will be out, and prices will be all shaken up on the current X2s, and whatever DDR2 chips they put out, in addition to any other fancy stuff intel does.
 
mikelz85 said:
but by the time the r520 is out, a ton of new stuff on the CPU end will be out, and prices will be all shaken up on the current X2s, and whatever DDR2 chips they put out, in addition to any other fancy stuff intel does.


R520 will be out far before M2, I can almost gurantee you, heh.
 
well I was under the impression it had been delayed again, and thus would be coming close to the time AMDs new offerings would be coming around (Q1 '06 right?), if not already out, the new CPU/mobo stuff would at least be very close (4-8 weeks), and thus a X2 purchase might be better to hold off on. If my timing on the r520 release date is off, oh well, but I thought we would be waiting for a while longer, and maybe not end up with a full 32 pipe card on the 1st release. Not trying to start a video card discussion, just trying to nail down the timeline the OPs purchase will be occurring in.
 
DAMMIT. I posted a reply and it disappeared.

Anyhow, my original post came with the underlying assumption that the R520 would be out in Aug-Sept timefrane. Of course, if it takes longer than that and, should new processors find their way to market before the release, then I will indeed contemplate the alternatives.

Like 99% of the [H] readership out there, I 1) have the upgrade bug 2) want to update to PCI-Express and bid adieu to an aging, yet faithful platform 3) have the upgrade bug 4) need to tinker with my rig again and 5) have the upgrade bug.

I can wait a while, since my system, while not "bleeding edge" is more than fine right now. It's great hearing from all you socket 478 types that made the switch so I have an idea of what I'm in store for. Don't mind being a nOOb all over again, having to learn the ins and outs of OC'ing an AMD rig. There is no way I can let that thing run stock past day 2..........No way.

Thanks again for the replies.
 
Scroatdog said:
DAMMIT. I posted a reply and it disappeared.

I can wait a while, since my system, while not "bleeding edge" is more than fine right now. It's great hearing from all you socket 478 types that made the switch so I have an idea of what I'm in store for. Don't mind being a nOOb all over again, having to learn the ins and outs of OC'ing an AMD rig. There is no way I can let that thing run stock past day 2..........No way.

Thanks again for the replies.

Here my opinion.

I had a p4 1.8, p4 2.53, p4c 2.4, p4c 3.0 and am currently running a winchester 3000.

I miss the hyperthreading. While the amd64 is faster and more stable, it simply doesn't measure up for multi-tasking. I used to be able to run a couple of encoding programs and game at the same time, with almost no loss. Now, if I try and encode and game... The encoding takes a dump.

Plus, if I run an encoding program the whole system slows down unless I lower the priority.

I run gameboy adv movie encoding, tmpgenc and a couple of other processor intensive programs on a regular basis. I want an x2, but I'm paying off some debt first. Hopefully I'm be in a position to purchase one within a month.
 
To answer your original question...

I'll start off by saying I've never been happy with HT. So perhaps I'm bias. I've been using multiprocessor systems for a decade now and HT doesn't compare. My first HT experience was with a 2.8 P4C, not happy I upgraded to 3.4 P4C and still wasn't happy. It was fast but not responsive in the way I expect a multiprocessor system to be.

My current rig is a 4800+ it's used for work and play. It's very responsive. It's the fastest multiprocessor system I've ever owned. The only time it's become sluggish is when I run out of ram, which I try not to do. Not sure why but Intel seems to handle this case better. I suspect nVidia's Sata/ATA drivers to not be of the same quality as Intel or Microsoft; at least it does not appear optimal under these conditions.

In my typical work usage I'll have multiple copies of VS.Net running, Outlook, Word, Excel, Virtual PC hosting multiple OS's for remote debugging, putty, and winamp playing in the background. While my 3.4 caused frustration and anger due to stuttering here and there, the 4800 has none of that. An example would be hitting a break point, getting the call stack, while trying to look something up in MSDN. Another example is performing multiple simultaneous builds. The 4800 degrades gracefully while the 3.4 seems to hit a wall; if I'm typing faster than it showing up on the screen or if menus don't show up immediately when I click them, we have a problem.

For my usage any modern x86 multiprocessor system would be good. I chose the X2 because I believe it to be a better realization of what multicore chips should be - better integration & lower power. Better integration because the onboard memory controller allows the chips to talk to each other more efficiently, e.g. cache coherency.

edit:
BTW here were my P4C specs:

3.4 ghz
1gig PC3200 OCZ
PNY 6800U

everything else the same as in my sig. Yes I did add an extra gig. How much that would have helped the Intel system I don't know, most of the time I was hovering 800-900meg in use. Occasionally it'd jump to +1.5gig, but only occurred during linking with multiple simultaneous builds.
 
thanks kmeson.

I'll be taking that advice to heart as well because I too am a heavy multi-tasker. I'm not happy with my winchester, it just isn't fast enough.

I need my computer to be able to do the following things: capture video via firewire minidv (used as a passthrough for hi8), encode a previously captured avi to mpeg2, author a dvd, run flashftp, couple of firefox's, and then play bf2 at the same time.

While the amd64 is more responsive, the p4c could do those things. Looks like I'll be saving my pennies for an x2 system asap.
 
Back
Top