amd 3800 or 4000?

[jimgeagea]

i wont be water overclocking, i have the gigabyte 3d rocket pro cooler,
3700 or 4000?
can i keep the cpu always overclocked, wouldnt that harm him?

 

[Promethply]

The 3700 probably will give you better OC than the 4000, but it really depends on your particular CPU ("your mileage may vary")

You can keep your CPU OCd if it's stable at that OCd state, and your system cooling can handle it.

 

[thanasi]

how would a 3700 overclock better then 4000 tell me so I can understand

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: jimgeagea
i wont be water overclocking, i have the gigabyte 3d rocket pro cooler,
3700 or 4000?
can i keep the cpu always overclocked, wouldnt that harm him?

I just heard from another forum that currently, the best OCing San Diego cored Athlon64 is the 3500+

Shweet, since obviously it's cheaper than the 3700+

 

[jimgeagea]

Originally posted by: Promethply

Originally posted by: jimgeagea
i wont be water overclocking, i have the gigabyte 3d rocket pro cooler,
3700 or 4000?
can i keep the cpu always overclocked, wouldnt that harm him?

I just heard from another forum that currently, the best OCing San Diego cored Athlon64 is the 3500+

Shweet, since obviously it's cheaper than the 3700+

3500 is venice, and not san diego, they have 512 cash

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: jimgeagea

3500 is venice, and not san diego, they have 512 cash

Have a look at this thread:

Confused about the A64's...So which cores are better?

 

[BitByBit]

One thing overlooked is that larger L2 caches, while providing moderate gains at lower speeds, allow performance to scale more linearly with clock speed.
This is why Prescott scales better than Northwood, and why the new 2MB Prescotts scale better than the previous.

At higher clock speeds (attained with higher multipliers), it is more difficult to keep the pipeline full, that is, going to main memory results in more wasted cyces.

 

[jimgeagea]

by the way, is is true???
is it true that all cpu under the 4000 will run at 166MHZ @ dual channel
while the 4000 will run at 200MHZ??
am i wrong??

 

[jimgeagea]

i was comparing the description of 3700 and 4000 @ monarch computer,

in 4000+ those where the differences::

The integrated Double Data Rate (DDR) memory controller dramatically reduces one of the worst, and most often encountered system bottlenecks found in existing platform designs; that is memory latency. The integrated DDR memory controller found in the AMD Athlon? 64 FX processor:

* Provides a performance boost by directly connecting the processor to the memory, thus dramatically reducing memory latency. As a result, performance is greatly improved on many applications, especially memory intensive applications like digital media and 3D games.
* Supports industry-standard, widely-available DDR memory modules for high-performance systems to reduce total cost of ownership and/or development.
* Features ECC protection that enables increased system reliability, helping to ensure your systems run smoothly.

High-Performance, On-Die Cache

* The AMD Athlon 64 FX processor features a large high-performance, on-die cache memory system for desktop PCs. The 1152KB (128KB L1 + 1024KB L2) of total usable cache improves instruction throughput. The end result is greatly improved performance on many applications, especially large memory workloads like digital media applications.

3DNow!? Professional Technology + SSE3 Instructions

* With the addition of SSE3 instructions to existing 3DNow!? Professional technology, the AMD Athlon 64 FX processor is compatible with the largest installed base of multimedia-enhanced software.
* Software specifically tuned for this suite of instructions means smooth, rich, lifelike images, precise digital audio and an enriched Web experience.


what do u think???

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: jimgeagea
by the way, is is true???
is it true that all cpu under the 4000 will run at 166MHZ @ dual channel
while the 4000 will run at 200MHZ??
am i wrong??

All the Venice and San Diego cored CPU will run @ 200MHz in dual channel mode.

This link provide more info about the Venice and San Diego:

link

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: thanasi
how would a 3700 overclock better then 4000 tell me so I can understand

They both have pretty much the same potential. AMD's manufacturing process has been working out pretty well for them it looks like. Seems like a lot of their cores are capable of being high end models, so they have to downgrade them to meet the demand for the lower speed chips. The core design itself might be good up to 2.8 or 3.0 GHz... and if 50% of their cores they make are capable of running at 2.8 GHz, but only 10% of the CPU's they sell are 2.8 GHz models, some of those cores capable of 2.8 GHz will be labeled as a 3500 or 3700 or whatever. So you might have a 3700+ and a 4000+ with identical capabilities as far as AMD is concerned, but the demand for 3700+'s was greater, so one got labeled 3700+ and the default speed set to 2.2 GHz and the other was labeled 4000+ and default speed set to 2.4 GHz. Both are capable of 2.8 GHz and can be overclocked to 2.8 GHz... but the 3700+ costs $330 and the 4000+ costs $640. That's a 27% overclock on the 3700+ and a 17% overclock on the 4000+.

Now you tell me... which is a better deal?

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: thanasi
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

Do you have SpaZams when you start to type .. none of your posts makes sense

 

[IamTHEsnake]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
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.

Ya? Well read this...

"The 1MB large L2 Cache could obtain only minimum advantages according to our tests opposite the decreased 512KB L2 Cache of the Venice. Despite same clock rate of both processors, the measurable advantage, San Diego, was in most bench mark only with 1,5-5%. The 3800+ Venice runs ex factory however with one around 200MHz higher processor clock, than its brother that San Diego. If we would have let begin the two processors in the standard work clock, 2400 MHz Venice against 2200 MHz San Diego, that would have San Diego completely clearly and lost clearly."

Sorry for the bad english but it is translated from a foreign website.

 

[jimgeagea]

ok guys, the battle now is betweem 3700 and 3800, i found that the 4000 is worthless, since i'll be overclocking
do u all agree on 3700?

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: jimgeagea
ok guys, the battle now is betweem 3700 and 3800, i found that the 4000 is worthless, since i'll be overclocking
do u all agree on 3700?

Between these two, the 3700+ SD will OC better than the 3800+ Venice, but both the 3500+ San Diego and the 3200+ Venice are better OCers compared to the previous two CPUs.

If you want to OC and not concerned too much about L2 Cache size, then the 3200+ (identical clock speed to the 3500+ SD, and yet about $70 cheaper) Venice should be the one IMO.

 

[jimgeagea]

i cant find 3500SD in the stores, so i guess i am going to order the 3700, thank you guys!

 

[jimgeagea]

well i can't find 3700 at zipzoomfly, so if i will order it from mornarch or sparco it will cost me with shipping the price of 3800
u can say that they both have equal prices, which will u choose?
3700 or 3800?

 

[Promethply]

Since you want to OC, I'd say the 3700+ San Diego will give you more "headroom" for OCing,

since the 3700+ SD runs at lower default speed:

Athlon 64 3700+ 939 1MB L2 2.2GHz "BN" (Rev E)

Athlon 64 3800+ 939 512kB L2 2.4GHz "BP" (Rev E)