Help Me Choose Between These Two Processors

2048Megabytes

2048Megabytes

Active Member
I plan on buying a new processor, motherboard and memory before July. I have narrowed my search down to two processors:

AMD Athlon 4400+ X2 Brisbane (2.3 gigahertz) 65 Watt - $57.50
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103213


AMD Athlon 4450e X2 (2.3 gigahertz) 45 Watt - $76
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103256

I know the performance with both of these processors is about the same. My question is how much estimated savings in power am I going to see within one year with the Athlon 4450e over the Athlon 4400+ processor?

I use my computer everyday and so does my family. I imagine it is on nearly ten to sixteen hours most days.
 
Last edited:
If thats going to be the only difference I dont think you would see any difference in your power bill as a whole at all. If your not overclocking go for the 4400. If you are go for the 4450e, running at the same GHZ at such lower voltage it would probable overclock better.
 
Both of those processors are not that great though. What are you going to be using it for? Is that you max budget?
 
Both of those processors are just fine. We have gotten to the point in consumer cpu technology where our perspective is very narrow compared to earlier times.

Realistically, what's wrong with a 4400+? If they were playing Crysis, it might be worth it to bump it up some...otherwise they won't notice a difference.

Essentially, processors have turned into benchmark land because for most of us (at least those that don't game HEAVILY) that surf the web, listen to music, watch movies, and do other minor things....it simply doesn't matter anymore what processor you have.

That said, if the OP comes back, I wouldn't mind knowing his intended uses for the computer.
 
StrangleHold said:
If thats going to be the only difference I don't think you would see any difference in your power bill as a whole at all. If your not overclocking go for the 4400. If you are go for the 4450e, running at the same GHZ at such lower voltage it would probable overclock better.
Click to expand...

I don't plan to overclock. If you don't think I will see any difference in my power bill I will likely just go with the Athlon 4400.
 
Well, I'm gonna say that all it is doing is idling on 45 watts (or 65) for those 16 hours to show you minimal savings.

With 45 watts idling 16 hours you would use, assuming one killowatt will cost you 15 dollarcents, 0.045*0.15*16*365 = 39.42 dollars a year. And when you idle at 65 watts that will be --> 0.065*0.15*16*365 = 56.94 dollars a year

So that would be a difference of 17 dollars a year if you let it idle all the time. I am quite sure that when your actually using the computer the difference will be even greater (this is just a difference of 31% at tops that might as well be 40% / 45%).

Though I'd take Intel over AMD anytime.
 
Timo said:
Though I'd take Intel over AMD anytime.
Click to expand...

I know Intel makes better processors than Advanced Micro Devices at the present time. It is my preference to give AMD my business as I like to have two major companies manufacturing processors. You get better quality products when you have two companies competing.

With what I am going to use this computer for I don't need top of the line anyway. I am sure the Athlon 4400+ Dual-Core with my other choice of parts will fit my wants in a computer.
 
i dont mind either, they both have pretty much the same specs and if your looking to save power costs itll be minimal, probably unnoticable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top