AMD 3700 SD vs 3800 Venice

[netviper]

I am about to get one of these two, but I am not sure which. From what I read breifly, the 3700 was more like a 3600 in a lot of tests, but was called 3700 because of the 1meg L2 cache. If that is the case, I would rather get a 3800.

I want it for gaming mostly.

Thanks!

 

[CheesePoofs]

Are you planning on overclocking either at all? If not just get the 3800, the extra 200mhz is better than the larger L2 cache.

 

[fatty4ksu]

Cache=better for gaming.

 

[Frown66]

What Cheesepoofs said.

If you plan to overclock, I think the 3700 is a better deal. Assuming they hit the same overclock (for arguments sake), a 2.6ghz 1meg L2 > 2.6ghz 512k L2, although by a small margin. Probably 2-3%. I don't know what the price difference is between these 2 cpu's.

Though with the 3700+, you should be able to get an easy 200mhz off it with no vcore increase and very little temperature increases.

 

[Hacp]

Less cache means more overclock ability, since it doesnt get as hot.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I picked the SD3700+ because

1. It has AMD's newest top of the line core and of course the 1mb cache

2. It was cheaper than the 3800+, the 3800+ is a top of the core line chip but the 3700+ is the entry level San Diego

3. They clock to aprox. the same speeds, mine gets 2.8ghz. The venice chips may clock slightly higher on average, especially with a stock cooler (my SD runs about 2c hotter than my Winchester with good air)

Overall the added cache and top of the line core architecture will overcome any small overclocking advantage the 3800+ has. And in the newer games like HL2 and Doom3 there is no comparison, the San Diego beat my Winchester by 17-20% in Frames per Second at the same clock speed and ram speed.

Per AMD's PR ratings the extra 512mb of cache is worth 200 points. The 3700+ runs at the same speed as a 3500+ 2.2ghz (200mhz less than the 3800+), but the difference between the max overclock on these (if any) is very small. Many people disagree with AMD's ratings regarding cache, but even if the cache is worth 100 points the SD will have a definate advantage at near the same clocks

 

[Painman]

Welcome to the forums, where we just had this discussion about a week or so ago 😉 familiarize yourself with the search function.

Yes, clock for clock the SD beats the Venice. SD also beats any 512k cache chip IMO in how your computer responds to you, it provides more 'snap' when navigating your way through Windows. So that's a decision you'll have to make for yourself regarding what's more important, at stock speeds a 3800+ may complete an intensive task a few seconds earlier, but a 3700+ provides a smother, silkier feel to the overall experience. I've tried both the 512k and 1MB varieties of A64 and that's what I have to tell you about them. I got a SD and juiced it up, and I'm very happy with it. I'll be keeping it for a while.