Was set on the 4400+ but what about the 3800+?

J

jcll2002

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
3,655
First of all, dont try to convince me to go opty.

Anyway, I am finalizing my rig and I was pretty much set on getting the x2 4400+ but then I suddenly realized like a brick hitting me in the face that I dont need the extra performance(or do i), only the dual core.

I realized that all the benchies are conducted with video and audioediting and such which is exactly what I dont do that much of. So, I thought, "Why not save the extra $170 or so and go with the 3800+?".

BTW, the rig is game oriented (as you will see) and I was wondering if the 3800+ will bottleneck the performance of everything else included in the rig.

RIG:

x2 3800+ or 4400+
x1900xt
2gb g.skill extreme
74 gig raptor
535 watt enermax
a8n-e
ect...

I was also wondering how far I can oc (without being paranoid because Im not that much of a pro at ocing, actually ive only overclocked my gfx before) on the stock cooling that comes with the 3800+? What about the 4400+?

One more thing, Im basically going all out on this rig because Im keeping if for my entire high school career, 4 years and I want to make it as future proof as possible (yes I know dx10, am2, and vista are coming out... btw can i upgrade to vista later?)


Any replies would be greatly appreciated,
jcll2002
 
I've seen people oc the 3800+ to over 2.7ghz. You can oc it to 2.2, maybe 2.3, with stock cooling and stock voltage. And I am almost certain you can get 2.4, 2.5 on stock cooling (but not stock voltage). So yeah, at least on ghz, you can get to the 4400 speed just by overclocking. The difference you wont be able to make up by oc'ing is the l2 cache size, which is 512 in the 3800 and the 4200, but 1024 on the 4400 (but I dont think that alone is worth the 170).
Personally, I went for the 3800...
 
Yeah, Im going to increase the voltage lol. That seems pretty good.

Also, im planning on ocing my pc4000 ram (2x 1gb gskill extreme) also. Is it harder to oc the cpu that much and still manage to oc the ram well?
 
Well, Raptors are way, way, seriously, WAY overrated. You'd be better served just picking up a regular 16mb cache 7200rpm WD SATA hard drive. And the savings from that should make an X2 4400+ more workable.

As to the difference...well, it's not HUGE, but it's certainly noticeable. Not only is the clock speed substantially different (two cores at 1.8ghz each vs two cores at 2.2ghz each - 3.6 ghz total processing power vs 4.4ghz), but the 4400+ has 1mb cache per core vs 512k cache per core on the 3800+.

But what makes me look to the 4400+ is the clock multiplier. A pretty safe overclock would be 240FSB (which most mainstream mobos tap out at), which with the 3800+'s 9x multiplier only takes the system up to 2.16 ghz. Not even X2 '4200+' spec! The 4400+, however, has an 11x multiplier, so, at the same 240FSB, you would be running at 2.64ghz - faster than the Athlon64 FX-60!
 
Opteron 165 will take you to 2.6GHz easily. :D



OK, 3800+ is good enough. I'd go with a 3800+ rather than 4400+ and save the pennies.
 
dderidex said:
(two cores at 1.8ghz each vs two cores at 2.2ghz each - 3.6 ghz total processing power vs 4.4ghz), but the 4400+ has 1mb cache per core vs 512k cache per core on the 3800+.

But what makes me look to the 4400+ is the clock multiplier. A pretty safe overclock would be 240FSB (which most mainstream mobos tap out at), which with the 3800+'s 9x multiplier only takes the system up to 2.16 ghz. Not even X2 '4200+' spec! The 4400+, however, has an 11x multiplier, so, at the same 240FSB, you would be running at 2.64ghz - faster than the Athlon64 FX-60!
Click to expand...

Did I miss something? My 3800+ runs stock at 2 GHz and 10x multiplier....
 
I also agree with the above poster. Raptors are overrated. Should use that money towards a bigger, newer standard HDDs (300Gb, NCQ, etc.) Yes it's a bit faster but barely noticeable. In return, you will get alot more noise.
 
dderidex said:
Well, Raptors are way, way, seriously, WAY overrated. You'd be better served just picking up a regular 16mb cache 7200rpm WD SATA hard drive. And the savings from that should make an X2 4400+ more workable.

As to the difference...well, it's not HUGE, but it's certainly noticeable. Not only is the clock speed substantially different (two cores at 1.8ghz each vs two cores at 2.2ghz each - 3.6 ghz total processing power vs 4.4ghz), but the 4400+ has 1mb cache per core vs 512k cache per core on the 3800+.

But what makes me look to the 4400+ is the clock multiplier. A pretty safe overclock would be 240FSB (which most mainstream mobos tap out at), which with the 3800+'s 9x multiplier only takes the system up to 2.16 ghz. Not even X2 '4200+' spec! The 4400+, however, has an 11x multiplier, so, at the same 240FSB, you would be running at 2.64ghz - faster than the Athlon64 FX-60!
Click to expand...


the 3800+ is 2 ghz, not 1.8.
 
ah, aside from the hard drives, which should I go with!?

Will the 3800 bottleneck my performance at all? Over the next few years?

Or am I just better going with the 4400+ for the long haul and ocing later?
 
Let me put it this way

Say that I oc both the 4400+ and 3800+, what would be the percentage difference performance wise? Keep in mind that I will be playing games and I will increase voltage and Im only using the stock hsf.

Thanks
 
jcll2002 said:
Let me put it this way

Say that I oc both the 4400+ and 3800+, what would be the percentage difference performance wise? Keep in mind that I will be playing games and I will increase voltage and Im only using the stock hsf.

Thanks
Click to expand...

That will depend on the chip and on you. If you really like to push processors to its boundaries, than it will most certainly depend on the cooling you have and on the chip. Some oc better than others (I know someone who got their 3800 to 2.4 on stock cooling and voltage, but I was never able to get that myself). If you wont push it to its limits, and just do the standard 10% oc, then the difference is going to be around 240mhz. The question, however, is whether it is worth it.
Check this out:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=192&type=expert

While I don't think its fair to compare an ov'ed 3800 to a 4400 in stock speeds like they do, you can see that even without oc'ing the 3800 the difference in performance is always between 5 and 10% . A cost/benefit analysis (which is what I did) would tell you to go with the 3800. With the 4400, you pay over 50% more in order to get 10% more. But, of course, I was on a budget. If you really need that top performance, then the 50% more is worth it. If not, the 10% difference will not affect when you need to upgrade again, and most likely you would only notice the difference if you ran really demanding applications and games.
 
I'll never understand this logic: "I'm going to drop a ton of money on a new computer but I don't want to spend $40 to put a kickass heatsink and fan on it" :rolleyes:

I'd go with the 3800 and HS topped with a nice quiet 120mm fan. That way if you get a chip that needs voltage, you don't have to worry about temps. But...you may get 2.2ghz on the chip, you may get 2.8ghz...its really the luck of the draw.
 
My 3800 will do 2.4ghz with only a .05v increase and the stock cooling in my sff...The extra 512k cache is a small boost in performance, somewhere along the lines of 3-5%. Not worth the $$ imo, but you should be able to get a little more speed out of it.
 
I use a xp-120 and a panaflo and I can hit 2.4 ghz at stock voltage
I can hit 2.7 at 1.475 volts
what the hell is the stock voltage of a 3800+ anyways

anyways I vote 3800+ and good heatsink fan combo
 
homersapien said:
I'll never understand this logic: "I'm going to drop a ton of money on a new computer but I don't want to spend $40 to put a kickass heatsink and fan on it" :rolleyes:

I'd go with the 3800 and HS topped with a nice quiet 120mm fan. That way if you get a chip that needs voltage, you don't have to worry about temps. But...you may get 2.2ghz on the chip, you may get 2.8ghz...its really the luck of the draw.
Click to expand...
its not taht Im cheap, its that i dont trust myself to not mess up the equip when installing stuff on it.
 
dderidex said:
Well, Raptors are way, way, seriously, WAY overrated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that is why it beats all other HDDs except for a few 15k SCSI's, especially in RAID arrays :rolleyes:
 
forget about the drives, I already made my decision.

I just really need to know about the cpu... Such a hard decision imo because I dont want to have to upgrade later and what if the OC goes bad (you know what i mean)?

In what areas will I see a performance difference between the two processors besides video+audio encoding and the (little?) difference in gaming (is it little?)?

Thanks,
 
jcll2002 said:
I just really need to know about the cpu... In what areas will I see a performance difference between the two processors besides video+audio encoding and the (little?) difference in gaming (is it little?)?
Click to expand...
Step 1. Calculate the clock rate difference between the two chips, expressed as a percentage.

Step 2. Estimate for a given application the amount by which it is cpu-bound (video encoding=~100%, graphic-intensive games in the 10-50% range).

Step 3. Multiply the two to see your performance differential.
 
jcll2002 said:
forget about the drives, I already made my decision.

I just really need to know about the cpu... Such a hard decision imo because I dont want to have to upgrade later and what if the OC goes bad (you know what i mean)?

In what areas will I see a performance difference between the two processors besides video+audio encoding and the (little?) difference in gaming (is it little?)?

Thanks,
Click to expand...

As I said, the difference is going to be 10% at most. This would only be noticiable if you ran an application that really demanded 100% (encoding a video could take 90 mins. instead of 100). If you need that 10%, then great, go for the 4400+. If not, stick to the 3800, it will save you a lot of money. As for having to upgrade later, because they use the same architecture and because the difference in performance is relatively small, you would need to upgrade either of them at about the same time. That is, they will both become obsolete at about the same time.
 
I have a 4400 - and I sorta wonder if I couldn't have saved some money and gone with a 3800 instead and be running at darn near the same speed anyway. I'd say go for the 3800 and see what it can hit, I bet you get close to where you'd get with a 4400.

That said, the 3800 does have only half the cache of the 4400 (512k per core vs 1mb per core) and that does make some difference.

Lastly, even though you said forget the drives, I have a raptor too - it's now in a secondary machine because it was just too damn small. They're fast, yep, but 74gb isn't enough space. Hitachi TK250 250gb SATA2 drive is very nearly as fast as a raptor - and a hell of a lot faster with 3 of them in RAID0 - and 10x the space of the 74gb raptor. Raptors are over rated - if you must get a raptor, at least get the 150gb new one, use the $ saved from the CPU. :)
 
Split the difference and get an X2 4200, or OC the 3800 (which I think is a better value).
 
BTW, there is going to be thermal compound applied to the cpu so I dont know how much more I can oc...

Ive decided the following (comments would be great):

Since I previously had the 4400+, 74gig raptor, and an 80gb 7.2krpm drive, I decided to change it to the following for about $75 less.

3800+ and the 150gig raptor. I saw in the reviews that the 150raptor was about 20% faster than the 74. Also, I really really really dont need the capacity of those 200+gb drives and 150 gigs is just about right.

Any comments?

Also, how much more will i be able (i know you cant give me an exact number, but can you give me a "little more" "alot" something like that)

Thanks
 
jcll2002 said:
BTW, there is going to be thermal compound applied to the cpu so I dont know how much more I can oc...

Ive decided the following (comments would be great):

Since I previously had the 4400+, 74gig raptor, and an 80gb 7.2krpm drive, I decided to change it to the following for about $75 less.

3800+ and the 150gig raptor. I saw in the reviews that the 150raptor was about 20% faster than the 74. Also, I really really really dont need the capacity of those 200+gb drives and 150 gigs is just about right.

Any comments?

Also, how much more will i be able (i know you cant give me an exact number, but can you give me a "little more" "alot" something like that)

Thanks
Click to expand...
Sounds good. From now on, I think the amount of disk space applications and games will require will increase faster than the amount of speed.
Just didnt understand the last part. How much more will you be able to do what?
 
my bad, i didnt finish the question :D

It was: How much more will I be able to oc the 3800+ of there is thermal compound on it? Also, do i have to reapply at a certain point or remove it?
 
Raptors are neat but I just don't see the point of them for a system that is mainly going to be taxed by gaming. I mean, my laptop with a 1.8 Pentium M and a 5400rpm drive loads World of Warcraft faster than my 2100 AMD with a 7200 WD sata drive (playing it at a decent framerate is a different story though :D ) . For a server or if you're doing tasks that require mucho data transfer I could see it being worth it but for gaming/general use its price premium for a few seconds less load time is too much IMHO. Save the cash from the raptor and put it into a faster cpu or graphics card.

I remember back in the days of CounterStrike and Pentium 2 systems. I was playing with a guy and we usually were the first ones to load the map. He was like "dude, you must have the new fast hard drive like I just bought". I forget if it was speed or UDMA 66 or 100 or whatever. Thing was, my drive was at least a year old at that time and not the newest tech, I did have more ram then him though and a better video card...
 
well, the rig is going to have the x1900xt, so i cant really upgrade that.

Also, its going to have 2 gb of g.skill extreme pc4000 oced, so i cant really upgrade that either lol.

The only thing I could upgrade is the hard drive/cpu. Are games/audio/video encoding the only areas Ill see performance difference with the cpu? What about hard drives?

In opening an application, what system component is being tested the most? In other words, what component is worthy of an upgrade to open apps faster?

I just dont know whether its really the cpu or the hard drive speed i "need". I mean, besides gaming, which component will i be more likely to be thankful of that I upgraded? (if you understand that)
 
diogo said:
From now on, I think the amount of disk space applications and games will require will increase faster than the amount of speed.
Click to expand...
Wait, What? I think you're missing a comma or something because I cant really understand it lol :D

Between the two decisions, Im not sure which one to go with because all of the contradicting posts.

1) 74 gig raptor + 80gb sata UNGUARENTEED BRAND so i dont know which brand Ill get, and a x2 4400+ w/ thermal compound

2) 150gig raptor, x2 3800+ w/ thermal compound ($75 less than option number one)
 
jcll2002 said:
Wait, What? I think you're missing a comma or something because I cant really understand it lol :D
Click to expand...

I meant that the amount of space programs take up on your computer is going to be bigger in the future. And that this will increase faster than the processor speed required. For example, 4 years ago top of the line processors ran at 1.4, 1.5 ghz, and most hard drives were about 20 gb. Nowadays, processor speeds have doubled, but the space required by most programs has increased 5 times. So, if you want to make your system last as long as possible, it is better to go with a 150 gb and a slightly slower cpu than 74 and a slightly faster one. Operating systems and most modern games take up at least 3 gb disk space now. With vista and all its new applications, who knows how much space they'll take up...
 
If this is for gaming you are going to be CPU limited 90 percent of the time with a 3800+. There is a reason most reviews sites us a FX57 or FX60 for reviews and that is to get all they can from the video card and limit the CPU bound problem.
 
jcll2002 said:
yeah, but isnt a hard drive much much easier to add/upgrade than a cpu...?
Click to expand...


yes. But the options you are considering are very similar. That is, regardless of whether you go with a 3800+ or a 4400+, you would still need to upgrade at about the same time. So considering you'd have to upgrade either of these cpus at the same time, going with more space means that you'd be able to go a little longer without having to add another hd.
So basically, you options are a 4400 with an hd that is not as good or a 3800, which will have a performance that is about 5-10% worse than the 4400, but with a better hd and some money left over.
Personally, I bought my 3800+ two weeks ago, so you know my opinion...
 
Ranulfo said:
Raptors are neat but I just don't see the point of them for a system that is mainly going to be taxed by gaming. I mean, my laptop with a 1.8 Pentium M and a 5400rpm drive loads World of Warcraft faster than my 2100 AMD with a 7200 WD sata drive (playing it at a decent framerate is a different story though :D ) . For a server or if you're doing tasks that require mucho data transfer I could see it being worth it but for gaming/general use its price premium for a few seconds less load time is too much IMHO. Save the cash from the raptor and put it into a faster cpu or graphics card.

I remember back in the days of CounterStrike and Pentium 2 systems. I was playing with a guy and we usually were the first ones to load the map. He was like "dude, you must have the new fast hard drive like I just bought". I forget if it was speed or UDMA 66 or 100 or whatever. Thing was, my drive was at least a year old at that time and not the newest tech, I did have more ram then him though and a better video card...
Click to expand...


Can't live without my raptors since i've gotten use to them, back when i had 37GB in raid, now the 74GB in raid rock, but unless they're on a real hardware raid with a good card, raiding them is worthless for speed. A single raptor is a great windows drive, for gaming I dont think its overrated at all.
 
Waterc00L101 said:
If this is for gaming you are going to be CPU limited 90 percent of the time with a 3800+. There is a reason most reviews sites us a FX57 or FX60 for reviews and that is to get all they can from the video card and limit the CPU bound problem.
Click to expand...
90% even if its oced?
 
jcll2002 said:
90% even if its oced?
Click to expand...
Not even at stock speeds...that 90% figure is pure PS. The reason sites benchmark graphic cards with the fastest available processor is to limit the effects of cpu binding...not because it predominates on a slower chip.

A 90% cpu binding figure would mean that replacing your graphic card with one that is infinitely fast would only give a 10% performance boost. Total nonsense....a 3800 is going to bind out at maybe 10-35% on a graphic-intensive game, and maybe twice that on other games.
 
baldrik said:
whoa. just stop. www.dell.com is 4 u
Click to expand...
what are you talking about...

I think that is a legit question... I wasnt asking exactly how much, I was asking how much the temps would be affected to let me oc more...
 
jcll2002 said:
what are you talking about...

I think that is a legit question... I wasnt asking exactly how much, I was asking how much the temps would be affected to let me oc more...
Click to expand...

I think that he was referring to the fact that termal paste is what generally provides contact between the heatsink and the processor, and therefore it is always used. That is, the fact that you are going to use termal paste is expected...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top