Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
I have a 3700+ on a DFI nf4 Ultra-D mobo, water cooled and currently clocked at 2.8gig cool and 100% stable. I do both alot of gaming and 3d graphic work so am looking at upgrading cpu.
I want at least my 2.8gig but out of a X2 processor without generating more heat than now. I dont wana pay over the odds either so was looking at a X2 4400+
Any recomendations are welcom.
In single applications or single threaded (currently most titles) gaming, the X2 4400+ will perform about the same as your current 3700+ at stock 2.2GHz clock speed.
With that in mind, it's totally up to you if you still want to go ahead with X2 4400+ upgrade but you should consider an Opteron 170 instead.
0 
Opteron whould mean another motherboard so thats a no go. My main concern is will I beable to clock the 4400+ at 2.8gig as easy as my 3700+ chip?
Another question is does a x2 4600+ or 4800+ clock any higher than a 4400+.
My current temps are 37c water cooled in a silver TT armor tower, no case fans at all. I dont wana add noise to my system due to more heat.
0
Ahh I see that its a 939 so that should be ok with my current motherboard.
Tell me! how is a Opteron faster given its lower clock speed?
0
The vast majority of games & other programs are not optimized for dual core yet, so unless you are a huge multi-tasker, I don't see the need. As Sabertooth pointed out, the X2 4400+ will perform virtually the same as a 3700+ in *most* applications.
$250-300 is a sizeble investment for what may be a minimal gain in performance.
"Tell me! how is a Opteron faster given its lower clock speed?"
It's not. Opterons are basically just the "pick of the litter". They are more rigorously tested to assure stability for use in servers. They generally overclock better than their A64 & X2 'brothers'
0
Aint I better off with a Opteron 150 as they have the same cache as my chip but its a 2.4gig. If they are more stable, then surly id get 3ghz or more on water?
Whats the heat like on them?
0
Even though the Opteron 150 is a single core processor, and you may not yet be in dire need of a dual core to get the most out of computer. In reality, multi core is the direction CPUs are heading and your money is better spent on a dual core as opposed to another single core CPU, hence my suggesting the 170 to begin with.
In your case, this line of reasoning is much emphasized, considering you currently have a 3700+ that is overclocked at 2.8GHz and runs quite stable.
0
If you're going to upgrade your CPU, definitely go with a dual core rather than another single core. The point I was trying to make is, is there an actual need? If your CPU is already running stably at 2.8GHz, why spend over $200 for a mere 200MHz gain? I don't know how long ago you built this system, but you probably would have been better off dumping the water cooling idea & investing in a better CPU right from the start. It's not like you're pushing the envelope with your overclock...most 3700+ CPUs can easily hit 2.8GHz with basic air cooling & the temps generally aren't much higher than what your seeing.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
