AMD 4200 vs. AMD 4400

[MindFlare327]

I see....I actually didn't know you could do that. I've always bought box systems up until now. Ones where bios and windows were already set up for me. LOL It's gonna be rough trying to do all these things for the first time. I think I can do it though...I've been looking at http://sysbuild.corsairmemory.com/report.aspx?id=2&sid=1
and it doesn't look that difficult.

 

[sojrner]

Good looking site. Nice step-by-step. I did not read it all but it looks really comprehensive. Should give you a nice leg-up on many first-time builders.

have fun, building is so much fun. Always nice when you are all done and hit the power... and it works. 😉

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

God yur such a bias idiot. I even like AMD but don't dismiss intel like you dismiss AMD.

He SAID he wasn't going to overclock, and said he wanted it to last for a while. Now I would say that either a e6300 setup, or a 4200 or maybe even a 4200 EE if he likes power effieciency.

Now it depend what he wants. If he wants uber power get a high end conroe. Thats anything over e6600.If he wants upgradeability, and enough power for the forseeable future get a mid-range AM2. Thats 4200 to 5000. He said it will be used for gaming and therefore he won't need to overclock very high, if at all.

Corvette... will you quit it already!!

He was looking for a CPU between the 4200 and 4400 (as the title says "AMD 4200 vs. AMD 4400"). In that price range (which is $183-235) you find the Core 2 Duo E6300 to be the best bet ($203).
As for upgradability, current 975x, 865P, nForce 570/590 all support Kentsfield (Quad Core). So in other words (unlike a current AM2 board which will not support AMD's 4x4) you're not limited.

So you get Better performance, lower price and a great upgrade path when going Core 2 Duo over Athlon64 X2. 😉

So I ask... show us FACTS like an open test that CLEARLY SHOWS a current AM2 motherboard running an AM3 processor or a Quad Core processor. Back up your claims.. we want to see 'em tested and working.

I on the other hand can show FACTS stating that the Intel Core 2 Quad Core based processor (Codenamed Kentsfield) runs on i975x and i965P boards. Click HERE and HERE to see.

Once again you've been proven wrong. So please, quit the fanboy schematics and let it be you are not in my league kid.

At stock speeds and with those prices YOU listed the 4200 looks like the best deal. You say you are a "performance" fanboy. Maybe that blinds you from knowing value when you see it. If two processors perform almost the same and one is cheaper and more upgradeable, which one would you get?

Given the facts I've presented.. this would mean the Core 2 Duo E6300 vs the Athlon64 X2 4600+. Both perform almost the same and the E6300 is cheaper... and the Core 2 Duo platforms are more upgradeable (as we've seen by the Xtremesystems posts where they ran a Kentsfield on an i975x motherboard without a single problem)... AMD on the other hand.. we don't know..😛

So given you own logic.. Core 2 Duo E6300 it is! It's also got the most long term potential due to 128bit SIMD bandwidth, VT Virtualisation technology and a whole slew of new features that the Athlon64... lacks.

 

[sojrner]

current 975x, 865P, nForce 570/590 all support Kentsfield (Quad Core). So in other words (unlike a current AM2 board which will not support AMD's 4x4) you're not limited.

Not wanting to step into this flame war, just thought I would correct an omission.
The 4x4 system will be a dual processor system, so you need a dual socket mobo. That dual socket mobo will be dual AM2 sockets, but it is not in the same path of upgrades like the quad cores from both companies, more specialized for enthusiasts. AMDs upcomming quad core will be supported on current am2 chipsets (single and dual socket)... just like kentsfield on the intel socket. tgdaily had the interview w/ that statement from amd a while back. You are not limited for upgrades w/ either system. Current cpu power aside, both have good paths.

now you two can go back to arguing. 😉

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

current 975x, 865P, nForce 570/590 all support Kentsfield (Quad Core). So in other words (unlike a current AM2 board which will not support AMD's 4x4) you're not limited.

Not wanting to step into this flame war, just thought I would correct an omission.
The 4x4 system will be a dual processor system, so you need a dual socket mobo. That dual socket mobo will be dual AM2 sockets, but it is not in the same path of upgrades like the quad cores from both companies, more specialized for enthusiasts. AMDs upcomming quad core will be supported on current am2 chipsets (single and dual socket)... just like kentsfield on the intel socket. tgdaily had the interview w/ that statement from amd a while back. You are not limited for upgrades w/ either system. Current cpu power aside, both have good paths.

now you two can go back to arguing. 😉

First of all I'm not arguing with you... just stating the facts as we currently know them from tests.

That's the statement from AMD, I've read it... but there's a difference between what they say.. and reality. Until tests confirm it, it's truly up in the air. We know it will be based on the AM2 socket but we don't know if current AM2 chipsets and current 3rd party vendor solutions will be able to officially support it. Until it's tested, we truly do not know.

Kentsfield on the other hand HAS been tested and it works.

I clearly remember AMD stating that we didn't need to worry about Barton working on current nForce2 board as they supported the 400MHz FSB with a simple BIOS update.
This was not always true, it came down to vendor models and revisions with MANY left out in the cold and only able to use the 333FSB option.

This of course has affected Intel as well with there i945 and many other chipsets.

 

[corvetteguy]

WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU UPGRADE TO A KENTSFEILD IF YOU BUY CONROE NOW!?!?!?
I know YOU would but most other people don't buy a processor for 3 months then dump it. I'm not talking about upgradeability for a couple months because hopefully all platforms have that much lifespan. I'm talking upgrading next year to K8L and AM3 cpu's that will be drop in upgrades for AM2.

I didn't say the 4600 i said the 4200 which is close performance wise and is cheaper thatn the e6300.

Stop your higher than thou attitude shit, and go read the thread about engineers on the forum to see how many people care that you were a hardware engineer. They say like I say that a peice of paper can't fix a dumbass like you.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

WHY THE **** WOULD YOU UPGRADE TO A KENTSFEILD IF YOU BUY CONROE NOW!?!?!?
I know YOU would but most other people don't buy a processor for 3 months then dump it. I'm not talking about upgradeability for a couple months because hopefully all platforms have that much lifespan. I'm talking upgrading next year to K8L and AM3 cpu's that will be drop in upgrades for AM2.

I didn't say the 4600 i said the 4200 which is close performance wise and is cheaper thatn the e6300.

Stop your higher than thou attitude ****, and go read the thread about engineers on the forum to see how many people care that you were a hardware engineer. They say like I say that a peice of paper can't fix a dumbass like you.

I'm a dumbass now.. LOL.

You have yet to prove a single point. The only people on your side are those who, like you and Sharikou, are fanboys. It's a disease really. Unable to come to grips with the fact that your preffered Processor Company is no longer #1.

I've proven time and time again what i've said with solid evidence and FACTS backed by 3rd party tests not wild speculation as you seem to be trying to feed people.

I didn't say the 4600 i said the 4200 which is close performance wise and is cheaper thatn the e6300.

Well that's great but in his price range $183-$235 (which he's willing to pay if there's a performance difference) the E6300 comes out on top matching the performance of a 4600+ which is out of his price range.

 

[corvetteguy]

I'm not disputing your FACTS that you cling to. I'm pointing out that your misinterpreting your facts. You show us a bench of a game where the FPS are already almost 200. SO if i can get 180 fps with a 4200 and upgradeability in the long term, and a cheaper price, why would i get an e6300 just to get anothe 10 FPS. You wouldn't be able to see it.

As for Kemtsfield, you ARE a dumbass if you just bought an x6800 and are going to go out and buy a Kenstfield when it comes out. Fpr being a financial advisor you have no sense of the value of a dollar. :roll:

 

[sojrner]

This of course has affected Intel as well with there i945 and many other chipsets.

Agreed, it has affected both.

I do know that amd has been beat down by core2 enough in the reviews and critic sites that they cannot afford intel the pr boost if they did not put the new cpu's on the same socket/chipset and keep a nice upgrade path for am2. I would bet good $ that it will be so, b/c if not they will be losing that much more of the market cred that the athlon64/opteron gained them over the years. (and there is not much left to lose!)

regardless, I think we are agreeing more or less. Go ahead and ignore me and devote effort to the other argument. 😉

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

I'm not disputing your FACTS that you cling to. I'm pointing out that your misinterpreting your facts. You show us a bench of a game where the FPS are already almost 200. SO if i can get 180 fps with a 4200 and upgradeability in the long term, and a cheaper price, why would i get an e6300 just to get anothe 10 FPS. You wouldn't be able to see it.

As for Kemtsfield, you ARE a dumbass if you just bought an x6800 and are going to go out and buy a Kenstfield when it comes out. Fpr being a financial advisor you have no sense of the value of a dollar. :roll:

First of all, another argument you're about to lose.

It DOES matter how many FPS you get in teh long run. First of all imagine newer games that don't run at such high FPS. We're talking long run right? Difference in playability between let's say 20FPS and 40FPS (4200+ vs. E6300 percentage wise) is noticeable. Now take into account that E6300 supports wider SIMD instructions and newer instructions not yet used. All these point out to even greater un-tapped performance.

Now as for Upgrading to Kentsfield, we're not talking about me. We're talking about MindFlare327, if he get's the lower end E6300, supporting Kentsfield is VERY important. It gives him a clear and decisive upgrade path to Quad Core with an 82% peformance efficiency (performance rises 54% going from Dual to Quad core). Cinebench scores show 63s for Single core E6600, 33s for Core 2 Duo E6600 and 19s for Kentsfield 2.4Ghz (Dual Core 2 Duo E6600).

So again... where's your argument?

 

[corvetteguy]

First of all, the difference betwen the 4200 and the e6300 wouldn't be 20-40. Thats because the cpu has very little effetc compared to the GPU. It would proably be more like 35-40. Anyway by the time you'd be down that low BECAUSE of your cpu, you'd be able to upgrade to a true quad core AM3 cpu, and just drop it in. Probably by that time intel will have changed something(chipset,socket,voltage) and you won't be able to.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

First of all, the difference betwen the 4200 and the e6300 wouldn't be 20-40. Thats because the cpu has very little effetc compared to the GPU. It would proably be more like 35-40. Anyway by the time you'd be down that low BECAUSE of your cpu, you'd be able to upgrade to a true quad core AM3 cpu, and just drop it in. Probably by that time intel will have changed something(chipset,socket,voltage) and you won't be able to.

Oh boy, you're a true flamboyant fanboy. So Intel is probably going to change something (while Quad Core Kentsfields work currently and there's no reason to change anything) while AMD WILL BE ABLE TO (while no tests have been conducted and we really don't know for sure).

Reverse that statement as your BIAS is showing. Everyone on these forums should concentrate on this post. Clearly shows a distinct and absolute BIAS.

It should read (given the FACTS we currently have).

Anyway by the time you'd be down that low BECAUSE of your cpu, you'd probably be able to upgrade to a true quad core AM3 cpu, and probably only need to just drop it in. However Intel's Kentsfield (Quad Core) works officially and with certainty on current socekt 775 boards supporting Core 2 Duo.

 

[corvetteguy]

AMD's quad core will be better than intel's quad core. Call that a fanboy statemnet but many reviews agree. I still don't get hy someone would go buy a conroe system now and then go and buy kentsfield in a couple months. There won't be any optimizations then, but there will be by the time AMD's quad's are out. I think the concensus is that AMD will come out on top in H2 07' and2008, and you will still be able to drop a cpu then into your AM2 board you have now. If AMD lied about that they would have some very angry customers, and since its in their best interest to make it compatible, i don't see why they wouldn't do it.

 

[evilr00t]

AMD's quad core will be better than intel's quad core. Call that a fanboy statemnet but many reviews agree.

As it stands, your statement is only another useless "fanboy statement".
If you can list your sources (ie. the reviews you speak of), and they are reputable, it will cease to be a fanboy statement.

Your sources, please?

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

AMD's quad core will be better than intel's quad core. Call that a fanboy statemnet but many reviews agree. I still don't get hy someone would go buy a conroe system now and then go and buy kentsfield in a couple months. There won't be any optimizations then, but there will be by the time AMD's quad's are out. I think the concensus is that AMD will come out on top in H2 07' and2008, and you will still be able to drop a cpu then into your AM2 board you have now. If AMD lied about that they would have some very angry customers, and since its in their best interest to make it compatible, i don't see why they wouldn't do it.

Wow you have a review of AMD's Quad Core.. POST SOME LINKS MAN!!!

Oh wait... you're mistaking speculation with facts again. Still haven't learned have you. I don't twist facts as you claim. I post FACTS... you post unfounded, baseless speculation and accusations. It's why you've lost every argument thus far.

What will an AM3 processor have as a benefit of being placed in an AM2 board? How is this beneficial? It's good as it gives an indication that there's the possibility of being able to run a Quad Core AM3 in an AM2 board (not certainty you're mistaking the two).

Certainty is Kentsfield Quad Core working in Socket 775 boards that support Core 2 Duo. 😉

AMD wouldn't be lying dude.. they said AM3 processors will work in AM2 sockets. They didn't say that AM3 processors would work in every AM2 3rd party motherboard model and revision...😛

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

AMD's quad core will be better than intel's quad core. Call that a fanboy statemnet but many reviews agree.

As it stands, your statement is only another useless "fanboy statement".
If you can list your sources (ie. the reviews you speak of), and they are reputable, it will cease to be a fanboy statement.

Your sources, please?

He doesn't have sources.. he's another Sharikoo.. I'm exposing him quite well me thinks.

 

[corvetteguy]

Here, i found one of your bogus recomendations for someone that would be perfect for AM2. I wasn't going to go and find one but since you insist on saying i make everything up... here you go. LINK!

Everyone take a look at his unbias recommenation. He says that x2 3800 is a great buy for low end but here he goes again dismissing AMD.

 

[purdueguy]

Since this is a brand new build, get either an AM2 X2 or Core 2 Duo system depending on your budget. Skip AMD's socket 939.

Considering that both pricewatch and pricegrabber show the 4400+ being $508 and $552 respectively, you'd have to be insane to pick a 4400+ over a 4200+. If you can find the 4400+ for 55 bucks more, you might as well get an E6400.

Price/performance is nice but ultimately it's up to your budget. From the prices mentioned by ElMoIsEviL, the E6600 is double the cost of a 4200. Is it double the speed? No, though 25-35% better performance, to me, is worth the extra money.

Look at the cost of a X6800 over the E6700. The X6800 is almost twice the cost of a E6700. Is it worth a 1.6-6.4% speed increase based on the F.E.A.R. benchmarks? I would say no but to some money is no object and they only want the best.

If your set on AMD, get the 4200 and the ASUS motherboard.

If your not set on AMD but are on a bit on a budget, I'd go with the E6300 Core 2 Duo with the ASUS P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe Socket T. The reason in getting the E6300 is to make up for the cost of the motherboard. I mentioned this motherboard since you already listed a motherboard with SLI.

If you end up not needing SLI, get the E6600 Core 2 Duo since you will be getting a cheaper motherboard.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Here, i found one of your bogus recomendations for someone that would be perfect for AM2. I wasn't going to go and find one but since you insist on saying i make everything up... here you go. LINK!

Everyone take a look at his unbias recommenation. He says that x2 3800 is a great buy for low end but here he goes again dismissing AMD.

Umm hmmm..

That's simple...
Look at his needs...

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?

He wanted Price/Performance, best price performance is the E6300, it's priced at $200USD but performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 $270USD processor. That's $70USD difference. Take $200USD and subtract $70USD and you have $130USD... x2 3800+ is $150USD... so it's no longer best price performance.

Another aspect of his post.. is his need for certainty. He wants decent performance with an upgrade path. Core 2 Duo motherboard support Kentsfield with certainty (tested and results published). It's not going on probability but certainty.

Take those factors into consideration and you have that for his needs.. Core 2 Duo was the better buy.

 

[corvetteguy]

Here, i found one of your bogus recomendations for someone that would be perfect for AM2. I wasn't going to go and find one but since you insist on saying i make everything up... here you go. LINK!

Everyone take a look at his unbias recommenation. He says that x2 3800 is a great buy for low end but here he goes again dismissing AMD.

Umm hmmm..

That's simple...
Look at his needs...

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?

He wanted Price/Performance, best price performance is the E6300, it's priced at $200USD but performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 $270USD processor. That's $70USD difference. Take $200USD and subtract $70USD and you have $130USD... x2 3800+ is $150USD... so it's no longer best price performance.

Another aspect of his post.. is his need for certainty. He wants decent performance with an upgrade path. Core 2 Duo motherboard support Kentsfield with certainty (tested and results published). It's not going on probability but certainty.

Take those factors into consideration and you have that for his needs.. Core 2 Duo was the better buy.

Ummm... No, your just plain wrong on this one. He had wanted to get an AM2 system for the decent performance at a low price, and with good upgradeability. He wanted a x2 3800. Then your like no no thats a horrible spu. Get the e6300 its a much better deal. Sorry to ruin your line of think but subtracting $70 is the stupidest thing i've ever seen. As we all no cpu pricing isn't linear, as we see with the x6800 and FX-62. He aslo said next few years. Kentsfeild is 3 months, so don't argue about that cuz your just wrong. This is just more evidence of how you bend information to fit your needs.

Whatever KING KOWITALL :roll:

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Since this is a brand new build, get either an AM2 X2 or Core 2 Duo system depending on your budget. Skip AMD's socket 939.

Considering that both pricewatch and pricegrabber show the 4400+ being $508 and $552 respectively, you'd have to be insane to pick a 4400+ over a 4200+. If you can find the 4400+ for 55 bucks more, you might as well get an E6400.

Price/performance is nice but ultimately it's up to your budget. From the prices mentioned by ElMoIsEviL, the E6600 is double the cost of a 4200. Is it double the speed? No, though 25-35% better performance, to me, is worth the extra money.

Look at the cost of a X6800 over the E6700. The X6800 is almost twice the cost of a E6700. Is it worth a 1.6-6.4% speed increase based on the F.E.A.R. benchmarks? I would say no but to some money is no object and they only want the best.

If your set on AMD, get the 4200 and the ASUS motherboard.

If your not set on AMD but are on a bit on a budget, I'd go with the E6300 Core 2 Duo with the ASUS P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe Socket T. The reason in getting the E6300 is to make up for the cost of the motherboard. I mentioned this motherboard since you already listed a motherboard with SLI.

If you end up not needing SLI, get the E6600 Core 2 Duo since you will be getting a cheaper motherboard.

Here are some prices dude.. from New Egg

Core 2 Duo E6300 $200
Core 2 Duo E6400 $259
Core 2 Duo E6600 $369
Core 2 Duo E6700 $599

Athlon64 X2 3800+ (939) $149
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (939) $183
Athlon64 X2 4400+ (939) $235
Athlon64 X2 4600+ (939) $247
Athlon64 X2 4800+ (939) $307

Athlon64 X2 3800+ (AM2) $149
Athlon64 X2 4000+ (AM2) $379
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (AM2) $183
Athlon64 X2 4600+ (AM2) $266

User is looking between 4200+ and 4400+ that means he's wanting to spend $183-$235 on the CPU. So he could go for the 3800+ or for $7 more get a CPU (Core 2 Duo E6300) that performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ ($266).
E6300 is in his price range and he only has to spend $200 Intel Dollars to get a $266 AMD Dollars CPU.

Makes perfect sense to me

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Here, i found one of your bogus recomendations for someone that would be perfect for AM2. I wasn't going to go and find one but since you insist on saying i make everything up... here you go. LINK!

Everyone take a look at his unbias recommenation. He says that x2 3800 is a great buy for low end but here he goes again dismissing AMD.

Umm hmmm..

That's simple...
Look at his needs...

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?

He wanted Price/Performance, best price performance is the E6300, it's priced at $200USD but performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 $270USD processor. That's $70USD difference. Take $200USD and subtract $70USD and you have $130USD... x2 3800+ is $150USD... so it's no longer best price performance.

Another aspect of his post.. is his need for certainty. He wants decent performance with an upgrade path. Core 2 Duo motherboard support Kentsfield with certainty (tested and results published). It's not going on probability but certainty.

Take those factors into consideration and you have that for his needs.. Core 2 Duo was the better buy.

Ummm... No, your just plain wrong on this one. He had wanted to get an AM2 system for the decent performance at a low price, and with good upgradeability. He wanted a x2 3800. Then your like no no thats a horrible spu. Get the e6300 its a much better deal. Sorry to ruin your line of think but subtracting $70 is the stupidest thing i've ever seen. As we all no cpu pricing isn't linear, as we see with the x6800 and FX-62. He aslo said next few years. Kentsfeild is 3 months, so don't argue about that cuz your just wrong. This is just more evidence of how you bend information to fit your needs.

No.. he never said he wanted an AM2, he said he was looking for a decent gaming machine with decent performance with good updradability he also wanted COMMENTS TO IMPROVE THE PRICE PERFORMANCE RATIO.

That's where the Core 2 Duo E6300 came in. It performs like a $270 AMD CPU (4600+) (70 more dollars) but costs
only 50 more then a 3800+. Making it the best performance/price ratio.

So I answered ALL his questions. Re-read his post.. he did ask for comments to improve price performance ratio. My $70 comment I just made to you proved my recommendation was just that.

Again.. you've lost another argument. I don't pretend to always be right, I have been wrong and users have pointed it out.. this wasn't one of those times.

 

[corvetteguy]

$17 more learn to count. You said 4200-$183, e6300-$200. Thats 17. And if thats always your logic, why not work you way up to e6600, it seems to have good price performanc. :roll:

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

$17 more learn to count. You said 4200-$183, e6300-$200. Thats 17. And if thats always your logic, why not work you way up to e6600, it seems to have good price performanc. :roll:

I had made a typo and type 7 instead of 17.. didn't hit the 1 key hard enough... anyways.. I've re-worded it right away.

 

[corvetteguy]

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: