AMD 4200 vs. AMD 4400

[ElMoIsEviL]

OK, lets get one thing straight. The competitor for the e6300 isn't always the 4600. More often than not its the 4200. Even from your own FACTS, the 4200 beat the e6300 in some and other the e6300 beat the 4600, but that doesn't mean the 4600 is worse than the 6300.

He did ask for a x2 3800 as thats what he put in his list. It fit his needs but you felt the need to get conroe in the dorr and make him think thats what he needed. The 3800 would have been a great choice and hopefully he didn't let you comment screw him up.

Good Job Know It ALL. You can't be proven wrong if you don't admit it. :roll:

Again I wasn't wrong. You opted to ignore his post. But here I'll teach you kiddo.

His post.. I'll highlight the important parts so you understand what the user wanted.

Experts,

Looking for a gaming machine with decent performance. This will be my first DIY PC, so overclocking will not be a priority. Decent performance with a good upgrade path over the next few years is what I am looking for.

Any suggestions / comments to improve the price / performance ratio?

Asrock AM2XLI-eSATA2
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 3800+ 512KBx2 Socket AM2
Corsair Twin2X2048-6400 2x1GB DDR2 800MHz
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB 16MB SATA II (2x320GB)
Sapphire RADEON™ X800GTO2 256MB DDR3 PCIex 1.6ns Limited Edition
Viewsonic VX922 19" LCD 2ms
Microsoft® Wireless Laser™ Desktop 6000
Logitech™ Freedom 2.4™ Cordless Joystick
BenQ DW1670 Double Layer DVD Writer Black Internal
Cooler Master Centurion 534
Thermaltake Silent PurePower 560W ATX/EPS with PFC/SATA
Lian Li CR-31B Aluminum 12 in 1 Memory Card Reader USB 2.0 Black

Got those...

User is looking for Decent Performance (so no high end rig), he's not looking to overclock either. He's looking for a system that he would be able to upgrade with certainty. He doesn't wanted a probably or a maybe.

He then wanted comments and suggestions to improve the Price/Performance Ratio.

So how do you answer this? Well first you look at the lower end CPU's from both Intel and AMD that match his price range. Usually it's give or take $100. You then disregard any CPU's that would need overclocking to keep up at that price range. And you make sure you can confirm with certainty and 3rd party tests that he has an upgrade path with the system you're going to recommend. You then also add in the price performance Ratio.

Take all this into consideration... only Core 2 Duo E6300 has the following with certainty:

- Fits Price Range
- Best Price/Performance ratio (For $50 more performs like $70 more)
- No need to overclock to keep up to similarly priced processors from the competitor.
- Proven upgrade path to Quad Core Kentsfield

Voila... E6300 wins.

Understand now?

 

[corvetteguy]

This is the last of your posts i'm responding to because you don't understand WORDS. he said decent performance. The 3800 was a good choice because it is cheap and performs actually quite well. The upgrade path for you thats great is about 6 months. He said years and that obviously makes AM2 the better choice for that. As for price/performance, the 3800 has much better price perormnace than any other, except perhaps the 3600. Here's a better way to look at it with rounded prices.

3800-$150
6300-$200

Is the 6300 34% better than the 3800 at stock speeds... NO. You don't need to overclock it to get decent performance, especially for gaming, so why pay more money than he need to for an e6300 when the 3800 is a better choice? Again because you don't understand the facts you post.

Goodbye

 

[evilr00t]

With the same reasoning, one should get a 386, since no one would pay for them now. The formula is: Performance / Price = small value / zero

The performance / price ratio is infinity.

Thus, people should get a 386.

 

[purdueguy]

I don't know how you and corvetteguy got to talking about a 3800 on this post but this was between the AMD 4200 and AMD 4400.

To answer ElMoIsEviL:

Umm, dude, the user never specifically mentioned his price range. I understand your logic but he mentioned like you even said that he wants the computer to last him awhile and I'm just giving him some choices.

Also, I said to skip socket 939. So the prices I mentioned for the 4400+ were for AM2.

If I were to go with your logic, he wants to spend a $137 dollars for the motherboard.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131540

Where are you going to buy an SLI motherboard for Core 2 Duo for $137. You're not.

Cheapest mother board I saw was for $199 from Newegg for both the

DFI INFINITY 975X Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 975X ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail and Foxconn 975X7AB-8EKRS2H Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 975X ATX Intel Crossfire Motherboard - Retail

But I will ASSUME he would want the Asus P5W-DH Deluxe motherboard to keep the same name brand motherboard.

Adding up the Socket 939 4400+ ($235) and the Asus MB ($137) to get $372.

Adding up the E6300 ($200) and Asus MB ($270) to get $470.

By your logic, the E6300 and Asus MB is over his price range and he should get the AMD system.

 

[x1900xtcooler]

Sheesh! whats with you Canadians anyway? Always so defensive and hostile! :lol:

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

I don't know how you and corvetteguy got to talking about a 3800 on this post but this was between the AMD 4200 and AMD 4400.

To answer ElMoIsEviL:

Umm, dude, the user never specifically mentioned his price range. I understand your logic but he mentioned like you even said that he wants the computer to last him awhile and I'm just giving him some choices.

Also, I said to skip socket 939. So the prices I mentioned for the 4400+ were for AM2.

If I were to go with your logic, he wants to spend a $137 dollars for the motherboard.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131540

Where are you going to buy an SLI motherboard for Core 2 Duo for $137. You're not.

Cheapest mother board I saw was for $199 from Newegg for both the

DFI INFINITY 975X Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 975X ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail and Foxconn 975X7AB-8EKRS2H Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 975X ATX Intel Crossfire Motherboard - Retail

But I will ASSUME he would want the Asus P5W-DH Deluxe motherboard to keep the same name brand motherboard.

Adding up the Socket 939 4400+ ($235) and the Asus MB ($137) to get $372.

Adding up the E6300 ($200) and Asus MB ($270) to get $470.

By your logic, the E6300 and Asus MB is over his price range and he should get the AMD system.

He doesn't want SLI. He's made a post in homebuilt. I've got him on an i965P from Gigabyte for $150USD.

Even saved him some cash on the memory as Core 2 Duo's don't need PC6400 when not overclocking. They work just as well with PC5400. ($80 savings). AM2's need PC6400 to get better performance then Socket 939.

So all in all you should check out his thread in Homebuilt. He's changed his mind on the CPU too and was going for an E6600.. I recommended an E6400 instead.

So yeah... 😉

 

[MG37221]

BTW, I don't intend on overclocking anything.....this one is going to have to last me for a few years...LOL

If your not definite about AMD/Intel, you owe it to yourself to take a careful look at the CoreDuo processors from Intel. Bang for your buck is basically a wash at the speeds you're considering but if you spend a bit more on the Conroe, you will get more performance than any AMD can provide.

Both are excellent processors (AMD/Intel) meaning one isn't better than the other, but the higher priced Intel procs are now the fastest in the world. Do some homework, decide what suits your needs and then go for it. You really can't go wrong either way except since you're starting from scratch, socket 939, at this point, would probably be a mistake.

I would disagree with that statement. Especially the part where you claim that one isn't better then the other. It's been made clear that Core 2 Duo is better then AMD Athlon64 X2/FX/AM2/939 etc. Even a lowly E6400 more often than not tops an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+. Not only do Core 2 Duo's offer more performance per Megahertz (more efficient) they also clock higher. This is like getting the best of both world's in a single Processor.

Let me explain, during the Pentium 4 vs. AthlonXP years fans from either camp where locked into an eternal battle. It remained the same with the introduction of the Athlon64. The Pentium 4 (net-burst) and it's subsequent spawns (Pentium 5xx, 6xx, 8xx and D series) all relied on higher clock speeds in order to achieve performance due to there relatively long pipelines thus low IPC (efficiency). On the other hand we had AthlonXP/64 which clocked slower could beat a higher clocked Pentium 4(Net-burst) more often then not.

This has now changed. We have Core 2 Duo's which easily overclock into the 4Ghz range (some hitting 5Ghz), while being more efficient per clock. It is an all around better processor. Whether you're building a Virtualization workstation (Intel VT Technology comes in), Gaming, Encoding etc.. the Core 2 Duo tops the Athlon64 X2.

Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13Ghz tops an Athlon64 X2 4600+ @ 2.4Ghz. Talk about a better processor. On top of that it also runs cooler and drains less power.

It's an overall better processor. It's only limited in games at high resolutions by our current single graphics card power (SLI, Crossfire, Quad SLI really help the Core 2 Duo shine).

Of course don't take my word for it.. check out the benchmarks.
CLICK ME!

Bullsh1t. Better implies quality. Intel's Core Duo is not made from any better silicon than AMD's X2 CPUs. The fact that the Core Duo is faster (at a price point) does not prove better. It only proves faster.

We're dealing with semantics here but I was referring to the quality of these products and maintain that one is no better than the other and since I already stated that the Intel CPU was indeed faster, there's no sense in repeating that here 8O .