3800+ vs. 4400+

[John Smith]

The street prices on these X2 products are about $200.00 apart ($500 vs.
$300) and they seem to represent the sweet spots for performance.

How much faster is the 4400+ with its faster clock and 1mb L2 caches than
the 3800+ for somone running 3 or 4 office apps, visio, 5 or 6 IE windows
open, Windows media player, Outlook open, some background file indexing such
as Google's index, synchronizing a pocket PC, just to name a few activities.
Is it worth the $200.00 difference?

 

[Kate Fisher]

No not realy. And you can overclock your 3800+ X2 to 2.2 or oven 2,4
ghz and save some money

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

The street prices on these X2 products are about $200.00 apart ($500 vs.
$300) and they seem to represent the sweet spots for performance.

How much faster is the 4400+ with its faster clock and 1mb L2 caches than
the 3800+ for somone running 3 or 4 office apps, visio, 5 or 6 IE windows
open, Windows media player, Outlook open, some background file indexing such
as Google's index, synchronizing a pocket PC, just to name a few activities.
Is it worth the $200.00 difference?

Depends on the applications. The bigger caches can make a huge difference
on some applications, on NCVerilog it makes a 2 to 1 difference, on others
the difference might be as small as 10%. If all you plan to run are the
kind of lightweight applications that you listed then I'd say you don't
need the 4400+, put the money into more RAM instead.

 

[Wes Newell]

Depends on the applications. The bigger caches can make a huge difference
on some applications, on NCVerilog it makes a 2 to 1 difference, on others
the difference might be as small as 10%. If all you plan to run are the
kind of lightweight applications that you listed then I'd say you don't
need the 4400+, put the money into more RAM instead.

On apps other than yours the number can, and often is less than 10%. It's
more often 2-3% and in many cases the larger cache actually slows the app
down due to overhaed of maintaining the larger cache. Anyone interested in
this should look at the cpu charts under services at tomshardware.com and
then compare the apps they are goiing to mostly use to get a better idea
of the performance gains and loses due to different cache sizes.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

On apps other than yours the number can, and often is less than 10%. It's
more often 2-3% and in many cases the larger cache actually slows the app
down due to overhaed of maintaining the larger cache. Anyone interested in
this should look at the cpu charts under services at tomshardware.com and
then compare the apps they are goiing to mostly use to get a better idea
of the performance gains and loses due to different cache sizes.

Can you give an example of an application that is slowed down by a larger
cache? I don't see how that would be possible. An application that fits
entirely within a cache of size X won't get any benefit if the cache size
is increased to 2X but it shouldn't run any slower.

 

[Gojira]

It all depends on how much power you really need,and how long you want to go
before upgrading.Sure,the 3800+ can be overclocked to a level close to the
stock speed of a 4400+,but you run the risk of overheating and increased
wear on the CPU.On the the other hand,the 4400 can be overclocked to speeds
matching the top of the line 4800.By the way,the prices have been dropped
by AMD,I've seen the 4400 for $460.

 

[Wes Newell]

Can you give an example of an application that is slowed down by a larger
cache? I don't see how that would be possible. An application that fits
entirely within a cache of size X won't get any benefit if the cache size
is increased to 2X but it shouldn't run any slower.

Actually, I was thinking more of dual channel vs. single channel memory.
However, there are about 4 or 5 apps in the charts at tomshardware that
put the 3400+ in front of 3700+, and 1 or 2 apps that are dead even. So
unless you have a specific apps that benefit greatly fom the extra cache,
the price difference isn't worth it imo. For those that don't know, the
3400+ and 3700+ both run at the same 2400MHz. The 3400+ has a 512K cache
and the 3700+ a 1M L2 cache.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Actually, I was thinking more of dual channel vs. single channel memory.
However, there are about 4 or 5 apps in the charts at tomshardware that
put the 3400+ in front of 3700+, and 1 or 2 apps that are dead even. So
unless you have a specific apps that benefit greatly fom the extra cache,
the price difference isn't worth it imo. For those that don't know, the
3400+ and 3700+ both run at the same 2400MHz. The 3400+ has a 512K cache
and the 3700+ a 1M L2 cache.

Both the 3400+ and the 3700+ are 754 pin parts with 1M caches, the 3400+
runs at 2.2GHz, the 3700+ runs at 2.4GHz. I have a 3400+ in my laptop.

 

[Wes Newell]

Both the 3400+ and the 3700+ are 754 pin parts with 1M caches, the 3400+
runs at 2.2GHz, the 3700+ runs at 2.4GHz. I have a 3400+ in my laptop.

No, the 3400+ I compared was the newcastle core (754) . It runs at 2.4GHz
with 512K cache. The old clawhammer core 3400+ is what you are quoting and
whjt you must have in your laptop. Wouldn't be much sense in comparing the
old core to the 3700+ since it runs at different clock speeds and has the
same cache. The 3700+ would win every time as it does running 200MHz
slower.

 

[ViNNY]

No, the 3400+ I compared was the newcastle core (754) . It runs at 2.4GHz
with 512K cache. The old clawhammer core 3400+ is what you are quoting and
whjt you must have in your laptop. Wouldn't be much sense in comparing the
old core to the 3700+ since it runs at different clock speeds and has the
same cache. The 3700+ would win every time as it does running 200MHz
slower.

The 3500+ has been shown to outperform the 3700+, both on 939, at some
tasks - mainly gaming framerates. Same clock speed.

-Vin