AMD ADO4400DDBOX Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400+ 2.3GHz Processor Reviews

• Bad product copy and Wrong picture shown

  
  By AOJJCLFIZ3Y0J on 2008-02-14
  The product copy describes a socket 939 processor and the picture is of a socket 939 processor. What you get is a socket AM2. I suggest buying a processor only from a vendor who can give you the serial number.
  
  

• Excellent, cheap and great for gaming!

  
  By A1TGOIQ84H6Q4J on 2007-09-10
  The processor.
  First thing's first: make sure you previously (or immediately) download and install AMD's drivers and Dual Core Optimizer (also be sure to update your motherboard's drivers and BIOS). The first time I loaded this puppy on my freshly installed Windows XP (32bit, for compatibility's sake) computer I found it to be painfully sluggish. The culprit? System Properties showed that the Windows had detected it at as an 1.3ghz dual core turtle. I immediately installed said drivers, restarted and hello, 2.3ghz of pure beauty. It's a little sad that such detection issue makes Windows (at least XP) install as an 1.3ghz processor, which is a lot slower than if it detected the whole speed and installed as such. Besides that, I haven't had any problems with it at all. It's also great for power saving.
  
  Gaming.
  On the topic of gaming, this processor really performs. Basically, you will only need a medium range dual core processor to play any game thrown at us for quite a while. Alongside XFX GeForce 8600GT XXX 256MB DDR3 DUAL DVI TV PCI-E and Corsair 2GB 240 DIMM non-ECC DDR2 RAM (TWIN2X2048-6400C4), I am able to play Bioshock at 1024*768 on the highest possible settings without a hitch. Naturally, no game I've thrown has been able to slow it down (for those keeping count, that's NFS Most Wanted, STALKER, Half-Life 2, Counter Strike:Source, AoE3, CC3 Kane, Call of Duty 2, Battlefield 2, Doom 3, Farcry, SimBin's WTCC and more (I'll update when RS: Vegas arrives). It's a powerhouse processor I did not even expect (we all know those 2GB and a cheap as gaming tokens 8600GT aren't really considered "good" for gaming). Also, a recent Gamespot articles shows that a powerhouse game like Bioshock doesn't even care what type of processor you own as long as it is a dual core one ([...]).
  
  Programming.
  I still haven't tested it extensively, but I must say that Dev-CPP and Visual Studio 5 behave excellently (naturally, Visual Studio being a bit slower than Dev-CPP).
  
  Linux.
  To me, the ways to really show off your processing power is by working wit Linux. Arch Linux flies on this puppy. As simple as that. I'll go back almost completely to it once I'm done with Bioshock (ok, laugh). On Linux, dual-core optimization is great, but what really blows my mind is a (almost) completely 64bit environment (unlike Windows 64bit). This thing flies.
  
  

• 1 MB or 512kb L2 cache??

  
  By A3UIBUSVM7SQYT on 2007-10-22
  I agree that the AMD X2 dual core chips are all good (I have a 5600+), but Amazon should be more clear that the ones they are selling above (4400+) carry only a 512KB L2 cache PER CORE for a TOTAL of 1MB. In the early days of the X2 chips, AMD produced a limited run with 1MB L2 per core, but due to production yields, costs, and enterprise commitments, all the newer ones (mid-2006 and on) now carry 512KB per core. A 4400+ with total 2M L2 cache is rare and more expensive.
  
  Having said that, the 4400+ presented here will perform great. I build systems and often use this same chip as it offers a great combination of cost and performance. The difference in L2 cache sizes *may* equate to a VERY slight average increase in processing times over different tasks, but it's HIGHLY unlikely anyone would notice. AMD processors have excellent on-die memory controllers so the presence of a larger L2 cache is not as critical as it would be in Intel CPU's, where the architecture places the memory controller off the die.
  
  
  
  

• not a socket 939

  
  By A2M4CSHH71ZGLR on 2008-04-20
  i was very excited today to have receive the processor for my socket 939 motherboard. when i opened the package i was disappointed to discover that i had been sent a socket AM2 processor instead. it was a great price, i guess too good to be true. if you have a socket AM2 motherboard i highly suggest jumping on this deal.
  
  

• Great Performance at Excellent Price

  
  By A1WBS8WDA68H5Z on 2008-05-09
  I used this CPU in two systems and proved to be the best performer at this price. You get the performance of Intel e4500 for almost half the price. I used it with GA-MA69VM-S2 for both systems and one of them is XP and the other is Vista. Both were running flawlessly. I used DDR2-800MHz. I only had to set the CPU Bus Speed to 209MZ to let the RAM run at full 800MHz speed which will put the CPU at 2.4GHz speed without any need to increase the Core Voltage.
  
  
  
• Wrong product shipped, No refunds
  By AD7BVJTJ9I4JC on 2008-07-20
  Tiger Direct shows the picture and describes the older Socket 939 version of this Athlon 64 X2 processor, but it is not what is shipped. What you actually get is the newer Socket AM2 version of the same CPU. It will not fit in a Socket 939 because it has one or two additional pins which prevent it from going in. If you are looking for the X2 4400+ for Socket AM2, buy this but verify that your motherboard supports it - Tiger will not accept a return of CPU. The price is great for what you receive. This is also the 65W (lower power) version which saves energy.
  
  
• Great
  By A3MXU3CH4BJ465 on 2007-10-30
  I have linux on this one, it's very fast with the debian 64 distr. great performance, I'll keep on testing...
  
  
• Exelent!
  By A2U0GRZTT8ZSXD on 2007-12-13
  This exelent product! great performance!. But the box used for shipping was to big for international and that increased my shipping cost.
  
  
• Excellent Choice
  By A6O80SUDEG15J on 2007-12-17
  I previously owned an AMD3200 CPU and thought it was good.
  Well, tried this one and it's great!
  Cool and Quiet does just that queeps the CPU cool and the fan in quite silent.
  I Highly recommend this processor.
  Next upgrade, will be a BExxx low power CPU.
  
  
• Loving it
  By AI54XO5Z755FH on 2008-01-26
  I began building AMD systems a couple years back with the AMD 64 3000+, which really was revolutionary in its way, fast and not too much heat, with overclocking potential when necessary. Since then, I've graduated to successive generations, the 3700, the FX-55, the LE-1620 (a low energy 45 watt processor to save electricity) and now the X2-4400.
  
  Like all AMD processors, installed without any problems. If you are timid about installing a processor yourself...don't be. It is not difficult. A child could do it. The only catch is, you need to do your homework, and make sure the motherboard supports the same socket as your processor. Now here with X2 4400, what you need is an "AM2" socket motherboard. The combo they are offering with the MSI board is indeed an AM2. In fact, I own that motherboard...and am pleased with its several features. That particular motherboard installed faster and with less problems than any I've ever had. Though I have not tried on-board sound. MSI has had issues with on-board sound on other motherboards. That's the only chink in the armor of an otherwise outstanding motherboard manufacturer...
  
  You may ask yourself, in fact you should ask yourself, do I *need* a dual core system? Well, at these prices, why not? You certainly would not save much cash opting for a single core, nor would you save much electricity, unless you went with a 45 watt uniprocessor, which I did for my htpc system (it truly does not need dual core, only running music or video over there, no games).
  
  Here's my short and skinny. If you go dual core, be sure to either be using Windows 2000, XP or some OS that takes maximum advantage of it. Also, I would deduct points from my estimate of your knowledge if you go with less than 2 gigs of ram. Why? Because RAM is cheap, nowadays, dirt cheap as a matter of fact, and you get way big bang for your buck with additional memory, through less hard drive access, bigger caches, bigger video memory, etc. the list goes on and on. In fact, if you had to choose between the two, I would go with more memory, and less processor. Today's standard is 2 x 1gb in Dual Channel mode, and why not get DDR-800, which is as fast as that MSI board (above) supports...at most it will just be a few bucks more expensive than DDR-667. Cough it up man. Don't shortchange your computer. Think of all it does for you.
  
  Now, if you go look at DELL, instead of patronizing your friendly neighborhood system builder, they will be pushing the faster processors, and loading their machine with 1 gb of slow ram, and Windows VISTA, which to my mind equates to a dog-slow computer, with lots of hard drive accessing going on. No, you do not want VISTA, not now, maybe not until Service Pack 10, if that. And 1 gb of ram is a joke with VISTA...not a very funny one either. I see that you can upgrade ram in DELL, but they want like $50 and up for a little more ram, whereas I can get 2 x 1 gb for way less than $50. I have never bought DELL and never intend to do so... They are carving the margins, and will snare the unwary. Oh isn't it generous of them to include a 56K modem and a 3.5" floppy drive? And those of you who think DELL means made in America, think again, your money goes overseas.
  
  
  

• Kingston ValueRam 2GB 667MHz DDR2 Non-ECC CL5 DIMM (Kit of 2)
• Kingston ValueRAM memory - 1024 MB - DDR II ( KVR667D2N5/1G )
• MSI Motherboard for UATX AM2 Athlon 64 GeForce6100 (K9N6SGM-V)
• Motherboard Amd AM2 U-atx 2GB Dualcore 2DDR2 8XAGP 2PCI
• Western Digital WD3200KSRTL Caviar 320 GB SATA 3.5-Inch Hard Drive