• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

ADV4400CDBOX or ADA4400CDBOX

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

iLLestOne

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Location
San Jose, Cali
ADA4400CDBOX should have TDP of 105w, as opposed to ADV, which is 89w. Generally speaking, the 89w should be better for overclocking but that's not a guarantee that it is. ADV is the one I would get. It would appear to be newer, as that is usually the case with processors. As they mature in the manufacturing process, they can sometimes find ways to improve the process.
 
True, and it "should" overclock better....But I've been searching for awhile and all I can find is people asking the same question as me, without any results.

My 3200+ can do 2.5ghz, so I don't want to get a x2 4400+ and only get 2.5ghz b/c I won't see any difference in games.

Does anybody have any oc'ing results with the 89W ADV? Or any site's that have reviewed their oc'ing ability?
 
Plz, I want to buy this tonight so I can get it here by wed (newegg).

I've searched google and searched a bunch of forums and haven't really found anything, other then people asking the same question as me.

With the recent price drops, SOMEONE here had to buy a 4400+ (89w) version. I just don't want to waste $250 and get a DUD oc'er....This will be the last thing I buy for probably a year, so I want to make sure I'm making the right choice with ADV and not ADA (I'm a broke college student :( )
 
Even if you get 2.5Ghz it will still be faster then your single core processor.

Everyone thinks going to a Dual Core and having a slower speed or even same speed will not do them justice. Of course going faster can't hurt either ;) All the tasks that run in the background weather they are small or large it will eat CPU power and decrease benching scores, FPS in games, etc. Dual Core will help this by offloading some of the processes to the CPU not doing all the work which after all, will increase preformance to your applications, like gaming.

Most of the Dual cores anymore for instance the X2 3800's can hit 2.5Ghz quiet easily on stock volts some hit 2.8Ghz on stock volts and with just a little more voltage they can easily hit 2.6-2.8Ghz. You should do nicely and once you go dual core you won't regret it once more and more programs start supporting it (and there is a few games that semi support it already).
 
I know, but it just sucks seeing all of you (well most of you) w/ 2.6-3.0ghz. My new videocard clocks like crap, and I'm only really looking for more FPS, so I really don't want to get a bad oc'ing cpu. I'm going to pull the trigger tonight....any other thoughts from anyone? Any reason not to get the 89w ADV? Or do you guys just want me to be the ginniepig!!! :p
 
I'd say get the 89W one. Thats just me and seeing how warm (even though it runs quiet cool) my CPU gets with a little bump of voltage in the summer I know I'd want the cooler runing one. Besides it will create less heat for the AC to cool during the summer ;) Unless your looking at it for a heater during the winter hehe.
 
There was an article in the tech news article bar thingamajig a while back that showed no overclocking improvement for the new low power chips. Unfortunately the link is gone now.
 
As far as OC'ing better, thats a perfectly logical assumption.

However, the way AMD creates these low power chips is they take the full power chips, and test them at lower voltages. The ones that are still stable at the lower voltage are rated with lower power ratings.

A chip having this characteristic of good underclocking does not necessarily mean it'll be a good overclocker too. Of course, it's not a guarantee in either direction.

Hope this helps some!:)
 
From what I've read the difference is that 89w X2s comes with the standard Venice-esque cooler, while the 110w X2s come with the Opteron-esque heatpipe cooler. That might explain $8 or so price difference.

Any idea how one of these 4400 X2s would overclock compared to an Opteron 165? My initial guess would be that it should be capable of higher overclocks then the Opteron since it is essentially the same core (Toledo=Denmark right?) but is faster out of the chute, as well as having a higher multiplier to play with. What do you guys think?
 
benbaked said:
From what I've read the difference is that 89w X2s comes with the standard Venice-esque cooler, while the 110w X2s come with the Opteron-esque heatpipe cooler. That might explain $8 or so price difference.

Any idea how one of these 4400 X2s would overclock compared to an Opteron 165? My initial guess would be that it should be capable of higher overclocks then the Opteron since it is essentially the same core (Toledo=Denmark right?) but is faster out of the chute, as well as having a higher multiplier to play with. What do you guys think?

My x2 4400+ (89w) is running at 2.4ghz. I can run it at 2.5ghz also but my ram sucks. So I lowered it to a stable 2.4ghz. I'll get some new rams soon and see how far this thing can go.
 
Looks like most people are topping out about 2.5ghz max on these 4400 X2s, at least from what I've been able to find on the internet. For stock of 2.2ghz that's not a good overclock IMO. The Opteron looks like its worth the extra $20, especially since the Opteron is supposedly more likely to come with the heatpipe cooler. People with current steppings of the 165 are hitting at least 2.7ghz with not much issue.

I'd really like to see some screenshots to back it up though, something that damn near every post I found online (about this 89w chip) lacked - screenshots! People at ocforums are good at providing screenshots to backup their claims, but some others....:rolleyes:
 
Brando said:

Those are the EE chips I believe. (65w and 35w ADO and ADD). The ADV is a 89w, and are not considered EE.


EDIT: I can still cancel my order and go with a OPT 165....The only thing I don't like is it's stock 1.8, when 4400+ is 2.2. But it seems everyone on newegg are getting 2.8ish w/ the 165's.....and it's only 20 bucks more.....damn decisions!
 
iLLestOne said:
But it seems everyone on newegg are getting 2.8ish w/ the 165's.....and it's only 20 bucks more.....damn decisions!

I think it's gonna be a crapshoot with either chip, I've been looking for a definitive answer myself and I can't find one either.

The only thing I've discovered is that I've not found anybody with a 4400 X2 clocked higher then 2.4-2.5...if that is the limit of the 4400 that seriously sucks (considering the stock speed is 2.2, crappy IMO but 2.5ghz is not bad for a 165 so I guess it's all relative)

EDIT: nevermind, I didn't search well enough for 4400 results :beer:
 
Last edited:
Wow, 2.7ghz @ 1.3v... that's definitely not shabby at all.

From what I've read with the Opterons the CCBIE steppings are money, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens over the next few days as more and more people get their hands on these chips. :thup:
 
Back