San Diego Vs. Venice

E

EmptyFlame

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
122
I'm hoping to be upgrading my computer within the next month and I THOUGHT I had the processor already locked in (Venice), but I did some reading/pricing of the San Diego cores and now I have a question for the group:

Which of these processors would be better for a non-overclocker, high-end gamer?

AMD Athlon 64 3700+, 2.2 GHz, 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939 64-bit Processor - Retail

or

AMD Athlon 64 3800+, Socket 939, 512KB L2 Cache 64-bit Processor - Retail

Realistically, am I going to see a difference in performance between the two? What about energy use and thermal ratings?
 
The San Diego's run a little hotter but I'd still go with the 3700+ because all SD cores have 1MB cache. You can always OC to compensate for speeds but you can never compensate for a lack of cache.
 
BigDaddy85 said:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=930400 uhh get 3200+ venice and oc shit out of it. :D
Click to expand...

That’s certainly one of the better solutions for sure.

I read all the comparisons between the 3800 and the 4000, almost no difference. Armed with that I bought the 3800 (Venice) but the fact is most of the 3200’s these days on the right board will hang right with me.

You will never see a use for the possible 100 or 200meg speed difference, it hardly shows up in benchmarks let alone games and everyday use. ;)

Luck
 
buy two 3000+ venice
whichever gets to the speed you want keep
ebay the other

mine is running at 2.7 at 1.4 volts happy as can be
 
with the losses from that extra 3000+, you can just get a 3200+ which is more likely to be a good core :D
it's a good idea otherwise
 
Twig and Berries said:
buy two 3000+ venice
whichever gets to the speed you want keep
ebay the other

mine is running at 2.7 at 1.4 volts happy as can be
Click to expand...

H-Wha, 2.7GHz @ 1.65v

Gotta hit a stable 2.8, gotta gotta gotta.
 
This statement probably makes the most sense so far:

neubspeed said:
The San Diego's run a little hotter but I'd still go with the 3700+ because all SD cores have 1MB cache. You can always OC to compensate for speeds but you can never compensate for a lack of cache.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of you guys missed what I said about not being an overclocker. I know it's what all the cool kids do, but I'm not comfortable with heavy overclocking at this time (with the current funds available if something goes wrong and my current abilities as well).

200mhz != a heavy OC , so I'm a lot more comfortable with that than buying a 3000+ or 3200+ and pushing it up there.

Does the San Diego core run a lot hotter than the Venice? I plan on putting either a ZALMAN Copper CNPS7700-CU or the new Zalman HSF coming out once I see some performance specs on it. Hopefully, with either of these coolers, heat won't be a problem. Agreed?
 
it is hotter, but not significantly.. they both run pretty damn cool

i would go for the 3800+. the clock speed will make more of a difference than the extra cache the 3700+ has. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top