amd 3800 or 4000?
- Thread starter jimgeagea
- Start date
3700+ San Diego beats the 3800 Venice by 5-7%, I posted a benchmark a while ago.
Its cheaper too.
I think the comparision should be between the 3700+ SD and 4000+ SD.
Its cheaper too.
I think the comparision should be between the 3700+ SD and 4000+ SD.
I would recommend the 3800+, it is cheaper, and has so far turned out to be a very good overclocker. I have read many post of people getting 2.8 ghz on air relatively easy.
Why do you say that? We're only talking 400 mhz here, I think 2.8 ghz is very attainable on the 3800+. Furthermore, at 2.8 ghz you've got around a FX-55, FX-57 for what... $370?
I know this isn't what is listed, but the 3700+ is by far a better choice than the 3800+ Venice. But if choosing between the 3800+ adnd the 4000+, get the 4000+ if you have the money.
I think it's safe to assume that the OP isn't overclocking, and in this case the 3800+ is best if you are budget constrained and 4000+ if you have plenty of dough.
The difference between the 4000+ and 3800+ is 512k of cache, and in most cases, that cache isn't a huge difference. The article mentioned in the fourth post shows the typical differences you'll see if you look at the even clock speed comparison. Replace the word "Venice" with 3800+ and the words "San Diego" with 4000+, and you have what is essentially a comparison of the performance differences of the two chips you are considering.
Look at the performance gains, and determine for yourself if they are worth the price difference to you.
The difference between the 4000+ and 3800+ is 512k of cache, and in most cases, that cache isn't a huge difference. The article mentioned in the fourth post shows the typical differences you'll see if you look at the even clock speed comparison. Replace the word "Venice" with 3800+ and the words "San Diego" with 4000+, and you have what is essentially a comparison of the performance differences of the two chips you are considering.
Look at the performance gains, and determine for yourself if they are worth the price difference to you.
hmmm, are u satisfied with your 3700??
there is only 5% difference bettween the 3800 and 4000
but a 200MHZ difference betwen 3700 and 3800, i cant get how the 3700 will be faster?
there is only 5% difference bettween the 3800 and 4000
but a 200MHZ difference betwen 3700 and 3800, i cant get how the 3700 will be faster?
i will be overclocking, that's why i am asking which one to get, will the 100$ difference in price, will give me a better speed ?
or the difference isn't worth the 100$ difference?
or the difference isn't worth the 100$ difference?
Considering the price difference and yet the miniscule performance difference between these two CPUs, I'd pick the 3800+
But if you want to OC, consider either the 3500+ or the 3200+
i just wonder, if i overclock the amd , can i keep it always overclocked? wouldnt that affect it badly somehow? or damaged?
suppose i get the 3500 and i oc it, to 2.8, can i keep it this way with no harm?
suppose i get the 3500 and i oc it, to 2.8, can i keep it this way with no harm?
Originally posted by: Zebo
4000!
Real deal full 1MB lvl 2 cache, not some stripped down chip like 3800.
Edit: no one spending $150 on a 3000 and overclcoking it can be a 4000Anyone can become the 3800.
if i get the 3700 and oc it, wouldnt give me same performance and speed than 4000???
will i be missing anything???
Generally the same core technology will overclock to near the speed of the top end chips of the line.
For example, people can buy a 3000+ and overclock it into the 2.4GHz range, and get equivalent speed to a 3800+. However you're not guaranteed to get there as a 3800+, you may fall short and end up in the 3500+ range (though most get at least in the 2.3-2.5 GHz range)
The top end of the chips have slightly more in them, but are limited by the core technology. There is not inherent differences between a 3700+ and 4000+, they both have 'San Diego' CPU cores. The 3700 is clocked lower to begin with, but is likely to reach 2.4 GHz (and probably even higher).
People who overclock look at the results from other overclockers to determine their chances a particular chip will overclock well. Currently the 3700+ chips are promising, and many seem to be able to reach the 2.7 GHz and up speed range. 4000+ cores may have a better chance at being really killer, but most of the 3700+ cores work well.
Depending on the applications/games used, the larger cache on the 4000+ may/may not bring you any real world benefit.
first off someone stole my link i was up late hours looking for the new amd benches tweaking on coffie coughing cause i smoke a pack of cigs in 2 hours anyways get the amd 4000 we all sit there and say 3700 no 4000 no 3700 no 4000 chew our nails till they hurt,plus you amd 4000 sounds cooler and will hit 3 ghz on watercooling.wait an extra week you bascilly got fx 55 for almost half the cost 3700 is a little worry on hitting 3 but 4000 will.plus look at thsi if a hot chick comes to your crib tell you got amd 4000 shell wanna fcuk you on that alone if you say I got 3700 shell be like my mom wants me home soon you see how it works out
Bottom line is,
The 3700+ WILL be faster clock for clock.
Sorry if this is to obvious which it is.
The 3700+ WILL be faster clock for clock.
Sorry if this is to obvious which it is.
what moron sorry I made a joke you lame herb.you can post it anywhere Siht give it to donald trump no president bush.I still love adolf hitler regaurdless.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter