Guest
Acadien
  •  Acadien
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2005-06-28T16:55:40Z
Im building my first rig, and Im almost sure about the X2 4200. Im going to be doing lots of everything on this computer, but especially gaming. Should I get the 4200 (it looks to be equal with th FX-55 game-wise) or the 4400 (for the cache) or what?
Sponsor
odizzido
2005-06-28T18:43:00Z
I would say the 4200 is fast enuf.....and also expensive enuf

by the time that thing is slow u will be able to get a far faster processor for a lot less I imagine.
Acadien
  •  Acadien
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2005-06-29T21:46:37Z
Jordan
  •  Jordan
  • 50.6% (Neutral)
  • Advanced Member
2005-06-29T22:13:01Z
The 4400+ is only a little more expensive here. Go for it if you can afford the extra. Just don't make a sacrifice anywhere else in the system to raise the extra money for the CPU.
Der Meister
2005-06-30T03:58:27Z
you can oc it to 2.64 on air really easy... i would go for it...
Acadien
  •  Acadien
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2005-06-30T21:25:06Z
so the cache isnt a big enough deal?
Der Meister
2005-07-01T02:11:39Z
well depends on what you doing cash is always better, but if you dont have the $$ then dont worry about it. dont they make a 2.2 with 1mb cash? or is that the 4400? i dont remember off the top of my head...
Acadien
  •  Acadien
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2005-07-01T16:16:19Z
Yeah, thats the 4400, which runs for like $200 more. Im gonna stick with the 4200 and overclock it past the 4800 speeds.
Jordan
  •  Jordan
  • 50.6% (Neutral)
  • Advanced Member
2005-07-01T16:34:49Z
Over here the 4400+ is only 35GBP more. Worth the extra IMO, but that's here and not in the US obviously.
boa
  •  boa
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2005-07-01T21:56:49Z
If your gonna be gaming and you don't mind dropping the extra cash I'd go for it. If already stretching your money I'm sure the 4200+ will still satisfy
Scribs
2005-07-01T22:59:45Z
there is no way the 4400 is $200 more then the 4200, their bulk sale price differs by almost nothing
SilentSpectre
2005-07-02T01:09:56Z
The 4200 isn't really close to the 55 gamewsie. The 55 has twice the cache, and is almost 20% faster. Oh the problems of using a PR scheme in these days. It's not a bad cpu, but for today's game the 55 would beat the 4200.
Jordan
  •  Jordan
  • 50.6% (Neutral)
  • Advanced Member
2005-07-02T08:06:35Z
But if and when games start taking advantage of dual-cores the 4200+ would come into it's own. At the moment I'd say you won't really notice any difference in games no matter which of these high end CPUs you use. Buying a dual-core now for games can be thought of as an attepmt at "futureproofing" but who knows when games that take advanatge of these dual-cores will kick in. By the time they do the 4200+ could be ancient history. Personally I'd go dual-core.
SilentSpectre
2005-07-02T08:27:39Z
True, but never buy hardware today for games of tomorrow. Instead, train a crack team of ninjalike monkeys to raid hardware companies for tomorrow's hot hardware (Shameless site plug) and use it for today's games!
Scribs
2005-07-02T09:29:22Z
lol. OR Look at benchmarks and see that the difference between one of the dual core processors and the FX processors in terms of current games isnt all that great, and go with the dual core because of the future proofing as Jordan points out. Yeah the FX is faster, but it has a lot less computing power, and from what Ive heard a large percentage of games now in production are being produced to harness multiple threads. I dont know why someone would actually buy an FX processor because of the price, but if you really want to throw down then go with the dual cores anyway...

Oh, and just to point out one other thing, an FX-55 is a few hundred dollars more then a 4200 or 4400. Its tough to compare things in such different price ranges anyway.