PDA

View Full Version : Athlon 64 4000 OR X2 Dual-Core 4200+


KD
February 12th 06, 08:37 PM
Athlon 64 4000 OR X2 Dual-Core 4200+


been offered these at almost the same price. Which should I go for ?

General Schvantzkoph
February 12th 06, 08:55 PM
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:37:19 +0000, KD wrote:

>
> Athlon 64 4000 OR X2 Dual-Core 4200+
>
>
> been offered these at almost the same price. Which should I go for ?

Spend a little more and get a 4400+. The 4200+ only has 1/2M caches, the
4400+ has 1M caches as does the 4000+.

Scotter
February 13th 06, 03:52 PM
To answer your question, the 4200+ is superior. It is also 64-bit but it has
two cores.

--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
6 gig DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig SATA2 Hitachi
Dual 24" Dell LCDs
550W power supply
-
"KD" > wrote in message
...
>
> Athlon 64 4000 OR X2 Dual-Core 4200+
>
>
> been offered these at almost the same price. Which should I go for ?
>

Gojira
February 13th 06, 07:28 PM
That depends on what program you're running,with ones not that aren't made
for dual core,including present games,the 4000+ performs much better.
"Scotter" > wrote in message
...
> To answer your question, the 4200+ is superior. It is also 64-bit but it
has
> two cores.
>
> --
> Scotter
> Tyan Thunder K8WE
> Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
> 6 gig DDR400 RAM
> XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
> 500 gig SATA2 Hitachi
> Dual 24" Dell LCDs
> 550W power supply
> -
> "KD" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Athlon 64 4000 OR X2 Dual-Core 4200+
> >
> >
> > been offered these at almost the same price. Which should I go for ?
> >
>
>

General Schvantzkoph
February 13th 06, 07:33 PM
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:28:25 +0000, Gojira wrote:

> That depends on what program you're running,with ones not that aren't made
> for dual core,including present games,the 4000+ performs much better.


Not much better, a little better. The difference in clock speed between an
X2 4200 and a 4000+ is only 200MHz. Th cache size difference can make a
big difference in a few applications, that's why I suggested the 4400+
instead, but for most programs the difference due to the cache will be
small.

Gojira
February 14th 06, 09:17 AM
"General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:28:25 +0000, Gojira wrote:
>
> > That depends on what program you're running,with ones not that aren't
made
> > for dual core,including present games,the 4000+ performs much better.
>
>
> Not much better, a little better. The difference in clock speed between an
> X2 4200 and a 4000+ is only 200MHz. Th cache size difference can make a
> big difference in a few applications, that's why I suggested the 4400+
> instead, but for most programs the difference due to the cache will be
> small.
>
From the comparisons I've seen,the 4400+ comes close to the 4000+ in single
core applications like games.It's probably the best choice,performance and
price wise.

Hawk
March 15th 06, 08:34 PM
"VanShania" > wrote in message
...
> Get the 4200X2. Its $100 cheaper and you can put the money you save into
> an
> extra gig of ram that will make your computer perform a lot better than
> that
> lowly 512k of cache would on the 4400X2.

I came to the same conclusion on the new system I built last week. The
4200+ seems to be at the sweet spot of price/performance right now. When I
ordered, the 4400+ was $100 more, the 4600+ was $200 more, and the 4800+ was
$300 more. From what I've read, most people have no problem clocking the
4200+ @ 2.6Ghz with air cooling (the 4600+ defaults to 2.4Ghz and has the
same cache size).

I paid about $360 for the 4200+, the 4800+ would have been over $660. For
me it seemed to make more sense to put the difference into more RAM and a
better vid card.


(*>