4600+ or 4400+

rogueeskimo

rogueeskimo

New Member
ok i just got my new computer from bestbuy here in the US. it says everywere that it has an x2 4400+, but it came with a 4600+! so do you guys think i should keep the 4600+ or replace it with the 4400+?:confused:
 
No, despite the numbers, the 4400+ is actually a better processor. It has a 2 x 1mb L2 cache where as the 4600+ only has 2 x 512.

The extra 200mhz, the 4400 can EASILY reach 4600 speeds, even my 3800 can surpass 4800 speeds.

But seeing as how you already got it, it wouldnt be worth it to upgrade to a 4400+. So just keep the 4600.
 
{LSK} Otacon said:
No, despite the numbers, the 4400+ is actually a better processor. It has a 2 x 1mb L2 cache where as the 4600+ only has 2 x 512.

The extra 200mhz, the 4400 can EASILY reach 4600 speeds, even my 3800 can surpass 4800 speeds.

But seeing as how you already got it, it wouldnt be worth it to upgrade to a 4400+. So just keep the 4600.
Click to expand...

No that is actually wrong. Spec wise it might look better but it isn't. Yes overclocking is a option but uh.... he got a HP. Do you know that the 5000+ has 2X512mb cache but it still performs the best besides the fx 60 and 62.
 
Last edited:
{LSK} Otacon said:
No, despite the numbers, the 4400+ is actually a better processor. It has a 2 x 1mb L2 cache where as the 4600+ only has 2 x 512.

The extra 200mhz, the 4400 can EASILY reach 4600 speeds, even my 3800 can surpass 4800 speeds.

But seeing as how you already got it, it wouldnt be worth it to upgrade to a 4400+. So just keep the 4600.
Click to expand...

If he could overclock, I would agree with you, but he can't. So the 4600+ would most likely be the best performer.
 
{LSK} Otacon said:
No, despite the numbers, the 4400+ is actually a better processor. It has a 2 x 1mb L2 cache where as the 4600+ only has 2 x 512.

The extra 200mhz, the 4400 can EASILY reach 4600 speeds, even my 3800 can surpass 4800 speeds.

But seeing as how you already got it, it wouldnt be worth it to upgrade to a 4400+. So just keep the 4600.
Click to expand...

my x2 3800+ actually outperformed the FX-60 with the same clocks. i don't know if sisoftwares benchmarks were biased, but the extra cache doesnt really matter that much...
since you can't overclock (most likely) id say stick with the 4600+ though.
 
fade2green514 said:
my x2 3800+ actually outperformed the FX-60 with the same clocks. i don't know if sisoftwares benchmarks were biased, but the extra cache doesnt really matter that much...
since you can't overclock (most likely) id say stick with the 4600+ though.
Click to expand...

its only cause you had a higher HTT then the FX-60 stock....
 
fade2green514 said:
my x2 3800+ actually outperformed the FX-60 with the same clocks. i don't know if sisoftwares benchmarks were biased, but the extra cache doesnt really matter that much...
since you can't overclock (most likely) id say stick with the 4600+ though.
Click to expand...
It outperformed it most likely because the bus was much higher then that of an FX-60.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top