how much preformace increase will i see between these 2? will the 1 MB cache help at all. not really OCing. i want lots of speed. and thoughts/ ideas?
3500 Venice VS 3700 San Diego
- Thread starter twitchee2
- Start date
Where the hell does an XP-120 come into play here?
He asked 3500 or 3700 and said he wasn't overclocking..
Did he even mention cooling?
And it's not a $60 difference from an XP-90 to 120..
WTH?
Mrvile
Lifer
- Oct 16, 2004
- 14,066
- 1
- 0
WTF? Are you ok??
Anyway if you can afford it, get the 3700+. Although in your case, the CPU doesn't matter that much. For video editing RAM is more important, you'll want 2GB of it. Actually come to think of it, for gaming get the 3500+ and a good video card, and 2GB ram. 3700+ only if you have the spare cash, but 3700+s are really only good for OCing.
Maybe if you have a mobo that can support high HTT, get a 3200+ venice and some nice cooling for it? (xp-90c + panaflo?)
Can always overclock.
Can always overclock.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any benchmark tests specifically pitting the 3500+ "Venice" against the 3700+ "San Diego." However, there's at least one testbed that has the 3500+ "Winchester" against the 3700+ "San Diego." But before we get to that...
At stock speed, the "Winchester" performs almost identically to the "Venice." Just check out this little graph: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-venice_14.html At most, the performance difference between the two is less than 3%, and on average, more like 1% (or less). So, the "Winchester" is a sensible stand-in for the "Venice" in benchmark testing.
As someone before me pointed out, here is a review of the "San Diego" 3700+ next to the "Winchester" 3500+: http://www.bleedinedge.com/reviews/proc..._reviews/3700sd/3700_San-Diego_05.html Obviously, it's not the greatest set of benchmarks, but they do demonstrate that the performance edge of the 3700+ over the 3500+ is pretty marginal.
My suggestion--and this is especially appropriate if you don't plan on overclocking--is to go with the 3400+, which at the moment can be had for under $200. And socket 754 boards are almost always cheaper than similarly-configured 939 boards. If you need something faster, a 3700+/s754 setup is about the same price as a 3500+/Venice.
Anyway, the benchmarks don't show real-life applications, so it's going to be tough for you to decide on what to go for. Good luck!
Hhahaha, what does the $60 in cost difference between the XP-90 and 120 have anything to do with the 3500+ and 3700+?
You're not going to see any change in performance unless you're using software to test the speed of the system.
now mine... 
anyway, get the 3500+ and 2gb of ram. the difference wont be noticable unless you run benchmarks. the ram will be noticable, with video editing.
anyway, get the 3500+ and 2gb of ram. the difference wont be noticable unless you run benchmarks. the ram will be noticable, with video editing.
i dont think i will be able to sqeeze out 2gb of ram right now but i might in the future. i dont do major upgrade for every 2.5-3 yrs so i dont know what is better. i am noticing taht the 3700 OCed is amzing i might do taht in a few months just not right off the bat.
If I were you I would save even more money by getting Venice 3000 or 3200 and just oc'ing it a little to 2.2 ghz (3500). If you want, they should be able to get to 2.5/2.6 ghz with decent cooling & good ram (looser memory timings, higher voltage for 1:1).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter