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.
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.
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.
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.
(*>
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.