AM2: Will the 1MB cache on the 4400+ make that much difference

[mr poo]

Looking to do a first time build as was initially looking at getting the 4400+, however with the 4200+ out now and them looking to be about £80 cheaper than the 4400 I was wondering what performance increase the 1MB cache will have over the 512KB. I wont be playing games on the system (it'll be used for music and applications like photoshop/quark etc) so should I just go for the 4200?

 

[HeX]

Personally i'd wait for the 4000+ to come in stock, will more than likely do the same speeds (overclocked) as the 4400+ and has the 1Mb cache the same as the 4400+.

Plus it'll save you a heap o cash.

 

[mr poo]

Personally i'd wait for the 4000+ to come in stock, will more than likely do the same speeds (overclocked) as the 4400+ and has the 1Mb cache the same as the 4400+.

Plus it'll save you a heap o cash.

Sounds like a plan, thanks.

 

[fenderbass86]

Agreed, they should have made a 4000+ for 939.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

iirc it makes about 200-300mhz difference

 

[Plasmoid]

At the moment the 1mb cache difference is small outside some very specific points. In most games it has no effect. However, it might start having more of an effect in time particularly as multithreaded software becomes the norm.

It's more a long term gain then any tangible short term benefit.

Also agreed on the 4000+ though, overclocking is the way to go.

 

[sablabra]

iirc it makes about 200-300mhz difference

Naah, not that much of a difference

 

[Thing]

In games and other intensive tasks the cache helps. I think Anandtech did a comparison between the 4000+ and the 3800+ and the real difference came in gaming.

 

[Explicit]

AM2: Will the 1MB cache on the 4400+ make that much difference

I suppose this might be useful to read this:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2762&p=6