4200+ x2 upgraded to a 4600+ x2(939)

[CarlD]

I killed my 4200+ trying to remove my IHS so i bought a 4600+ seeing as the prices are good =]

Will i see any improvements if i overclock?

Im on water and i was wondering how far i could overclock it on an asus a8n SLi SE and with 2gb OCZ GOLD XTC DDR400 PC3200?

 

[deadeyedic30]

Should have got an X2 4400 then you would have had the extra cache regardless of any overlcocks, 4200 and 4600 have the same cache just 4600 is 200mhz faster.

 

[dark4orz]

but it will clock slightly better then the 4400+

 

[CarlD]

Opps the 4600+ will do anyway

 

[Uriel]

Dunno - the 939 4600+ and 4400+ prices are about equal in a few places now (even taking the TWO into account). The higher multi in the 4600+ could be just as handy as the the extra cache in the 4400+, particularly if you're not running with premium RAM or a motherboard that doesn't overclock particularly well. With prices as they are the 4600+ might work out best bang for buck in the x2 range for some people.

I'm thinking of a November CPU upgrade, depending on finances. Given that my existing RAM isn't known for it's overclocking potential, I'll be getting the 4600+ if the prices stay as they are now. If the prices scaled with the model numbers I'd be a lot more tempted by a 4400+.

 

[monaco87]

I am not sold on the benefits of the extra cache. I have two systems same mobo, ram, andGFX, one 3500 one 3700 and I can't detect any difference. I'm sure they differ slightly in terms of performnce numbers but I can't TELL the difference.

I'm also not sure that Windows and it's apps can yet do great things with dual core. This is not an anti Windows post but I also have a dual boot system W2000/Solaris 10. Just swapped the 3700 in that for a 4200. In Windows I can't tell the difference, in Solaris the performance boost is enormous, no special dual core tweaked apps, just running the same old stuff.

 

[ghgh]

Me neither, ive got a 3500+ and a 3700+ both at around 2.6GHz and they feel exactly the same speed to use. Same chipset motherboard as each other too. I Cant notice the extra 512kb l2 cache making any difference in real world performance.

 

[Final8y]

Me neither, ive got a 3500+ and a 3700+ both at around 2.6GHz and they feel exactly the same speed to use. Same chipset motherboard as each other too. I Cant notice the extra 512kb l2 cache making any difference in real world performance.

The bigger cache will show benefits when the code fits inside the cache to much code has out grown the cache size so it will be in system mem.
You notice now that bigger cache are needed now to fit more code in the cache for better speed up that why the new intel chips have much more cache.

 

[monaco87]

The bigger cache will show benefits when the code fits inside the cache to much code has out grown the cache size so it will be in system mem.
You notice now that bigger cache are needed now to fit more code in the cache for better speed up that why the new intel chips have much more cache.

I think Intel's bigger cache reflects their dependency on longer pipelines. A pipeline stall incurs a huge overhead as the entire pipeline must be flushed and refetched. If some of the refetch is already in cache this irons the bump out a bit.

An extra 512K of cache is really neither here nor there... except for cpu benchmarks which tend to be quite small and therefore may even fit in the cache! Once a cpu takes an unpredicted branch the cache contents can be useless, so for some apps cache management can actually hit performance.

 

[ghgh]

The main thing I found the 3500 and 3700+ was SuperPI...where the san diego was significantly quicker at the same clock speed as the venice.

 

[dark4orz]

bigger cache is good for encoding, but other then that not much difference between 4400 & 4600. This is someone who has had both processors.

 

[CarlD]

Ah well iv orderd the 4600+ Was ment to arrive today and i got someone elses order

Some headphones

I was expecting my CPU + Waterblock xD