Hello
I am a newby attempting to spec/build my first PC . Budget is around £1000 total excluding monitir.
I will be using my PC mainly for video encoding/editing and gameing. I think I would be better off with a dual core AMD CPU. Looking in the Overclockers catalog at the AMD 64 X2 4200+ (socket 939), is it really worth spending an extra £70 on a AMD 64 X2 4400+ just to get 1MB of cache compared to 512kb? Does it really make a significant difference? Looking at this comparison chart on Toms Hardware, it seems that the extra cache makes next to no difference. Yet from what I've read on these forums the 4400+ comes recommended over the 4200+.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I don't know much about PC's and I'm getting confused. I don't want to waste my money as I can't afford to make a mistake.
I would really appreciate any help.
Many thanks in advance
I am a newby attempting to spec/build my first PC . Budget is around £1000 total excluding monitir.
I will be using my PC mainly for video encoding/editing and gameing. I think I would be better off with a dual core AMD CPU. Looking in the Overclockers catalog at the AMD 64 X2 4200+ (socket 939), is it really worth spending an extra £70 on a AMD 64 X2 4400+ just to get 1MB of cache compared to 512kb? Does it really make a significant difference? Looking at this comparison chart on Toms Hardware, it seems that the extra cache makes next to no difference. Yet from what I've read on these forums the 4400+ comes recommended over the 4200+.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I don't know much about PC's and I'm getting confused. I don't want to waste my money as I can't afford to make a mistake.
I would really appreciate any help.
Many thanks in advance