amd sandiego benchmarks hits 3.0 ghz

[thanasi]

http://translate.google.com/translate?h...%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial

the link is translated muhahahha read it and weep im defintly getting the 3700 with water cooling lol or maybe 4000
he said it ran prime stable

 

[d33pblue]

They have a comparison review of the 3700+ San Diego and the 3800+ Venice. Very useful.

Good find

 

[d33pblue]

And wow... he got the 3800+ Venice to almost 3.2Ghz :Q

 

[Jeff7181]

Don't get too excited yet. Don't forget reviews showed the Venice getting to 2.8 GHz very easily, and the majority of the Venice chips people have been getting are only seeing about 2.5-2.6 GHz.

 

[thanasi]

he said if you read carfully he hit 3.0 ghz ran prime stable who cares about venice san diego is the way to go why upgrade the same cache meanwhile you get 1 mb l2 cache im sure the amd 4000 will hit 3.0 super stable

 

[Hyperlite]

you want to know why? because the venice costs $156.

 

[thanasi]

dude you pay 150 so go ahead and later on when you regret it youll understand wait that extra week or 2 youll break away from the mainstream chip hit a san 4000 and let it peel out
never try to save money why you ask cause i tryed doing that then it bytes you in aZZ Im trying to help you not argue with you

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: thanasi
dude you pay 150 so go ahead and later on when you regret it youll understand wait that extra week or 2 youll break away from the mainstream chip hit a san 4000 and let it peel out
never try to save money why you ask cause i tryed doing that then it bytes you in aZZ Im trying to help you not argue with you

lol you love to ramble why you dont use any phrasing it seems like all your statements is in one mess so go ahead and use this english so no one understands you

 

[Jeff7181]

dat san deeaygo chip is da bomb yo
you just wait and see it will roxxors your boxxors
listen to me i know im doin yo azz a favo foo
recognize!

 

[thanasi]

ok all im saying proffesor of fcking english,Dont waste your doe on that cheap junk save your money get the better proccesor,youll be happier,when people are wrong they attack there grammer dont pull that with me

P.S THIS IS A FORUM NOT AN ENGLISH CLASS

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: thanasi
ok all im saying proffesor of fcking english,Dont waste your doe on that cheap junk save your money get the better proccesor,youll be happier,when people are wrong they attack there grammer dont pull that with me

P.S THIS IS A FORUM NOT AN ENGLISH CLASS

You're right... it is a forum, not an english class. But it helps if you use a little bit of proper punctuation to separate your thoughts so it's somewhat readable.

So lets see... back on topic... I should avoid spending $150 on a processor so instead I can spend $400-500 on a processor. After overclocking, the $400-500 processor performs 10% faster and costs 100+% more. Hmmm... I guess if you don't mind your wallet being 50% lighter in order to have a computer that's 10% faster... hell yeah... it's a great deal. :roll:

*EDIT* There is a market for those processors. Some people are willing to pay the premium price... but don't pretend for a second that they're a better value. That's rediculous.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

A few people are beginning to hit 3ghz on water, usually with the IHS removed. But 2.8-2.9 seems to be the range on air prime stable for the SD's

Heres what I've got with the 3700+ San Diego

12 hours Prime stable 2805mhz
SuperPI at 2805mhz

It will run benches up to 2850 but primes fails after a few hours.

My best boot to windows so far (nowhere near stable)
2906 CPU-Z verified

The max vcore on my board is 1.58 actual, with a board like the DFI that offers higher voltages I'm sure it will scale a bit higher, but I don't think my chip would do 3ghz without chilled water or phase change.

 

[thanasi]

hum let see,lets get down to detail you wanna go to war ok,When you have an amd 4000 say 2.4 and an amd 3700 2.2 ,then you clock it an extra 200 mhz,the amd 4000 will still preform better,But not noticabally,but it still will,Of course I rather get the 3700 but if it was down to benchmarks the 3700 overclocked to 2.4 will lose to amd 4000 2.4.Save your cans and nickles,You wanna get what the 3200 939 venice?lol.GO and look there isnt a noticable difference in performance between the other 3200,but you can have a fighting chance saying what 2 percent increase,or maybe the socket 754 it had single channel memmory but again dual channel with amd realy is alot bigger peformance gain only with intels.

the best deal you should get is a pentium 100 mhz overclock to 5000ghz now thats a performance gain worth fighting about lol

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: thanasi
hum let see,lets get down to detail you wanna go to war ok,When you have an amd 4000 say 2.4 and an amd 3700 2.2 ,then you clock it an extra 200 mhz,the amd 4000 will still preform better,But not noticabally,but it still will,Of course I rather get the 3700 but if it was down to benchmarks the 3700 overclocked to 2.4 will lose to amd 4000 2.4.Save your cans and nickles,You wanna get what the 3200 939 venice?lol.GO and look there isnt a noticable difference in performance between the other 3200,but you can have a fighting chance saying what 2 percent increase,or maybe the socket 754 it had single channel memmory but again dual channel with amd realy is alot bigger peformance gain only with intels.

the best deal you should get is a pentium 100 mhz overclock to 5000ghz now thats a performance gain worth fighting about lol

What the hell is going on in that post?! :Q

 

[Xed]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
What the hell is going on in that post?! :Q

 

[Brian23]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: thanasi
hum let see,lets get down to detail you wanna go to war ok,When you have an amd 4000 say 2.4 and an amd 3700 2.2 ,then you clock it an extra 200 mhz,the amd 4000 will still preform better,But not noticabally,but it still will,Of course I rather get the 3700 but if it was down to benchmarks the 3700 overclocked to 2.4 will lose to amd 4000 2.4.Save your cans and nickles,You wanna get what the 3200 939 venice?lol.GO and look there isnt a noticable difference in performance between the other 3200,but you can have a fighting chance saying what 2 percent increase,or maybe the socket 754 it had single channel memmory but again dual channel with amd realy is alot bigger peformance gain only with intels.

the best deal you should get is a pentium 100 mhz overclock to 5000ghz now thats a performance gain worth fighting about lol

What the hell is going on in that post?! :Q

I'm trying to figure it out too... My inebreatiion isn't helping though. I think he's smoking something illegal.

 

[pol II]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
dat san deeaygo chip is da bomb yo
you just wait and see it will roxxors your boxxors
listen to me i know im doin yo azz a favo foo
recognize!

Heh, that was good

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: thanasi
ok all im saying proffesor of fcking english,Dont waste your doe on that cheap junk save your money get the better proccesor,youll be happier,when people are wrong they attack there grammer dont pull that with me

P.S THIS IS A FORUM NOT AN ENGLISH CLASS

You're right... it is a forum, not an english class. But it helps if you use a little bit of proper punctuation to separate your thoughts so it's somewhat readable.

So lets see... back on topic... I should avoid spending $150 on a processor so instead I can spend $400-500 on a processor. After overclocking, the $400-500 processor performs 10% faster and costs 100+% more. Hmmm... I guess if you don't mind your wallet being 50% lighter in order to have a computer that's 10% faster... hell yeah... it's a great deal. :roll:

*EDIT* There is a market for those processors. Some people are willing to pay the premium price... but don't pretend for a second that they're a better value. That's rediculous.

Jeff, you are absolutely right.

I don't think that you can tell someone that buys a $300 processor vs. a $150 processor that the person who spent more money has gotten the better deal....

even if the 150 processor hits 2.6 and the 300 hits 2.8... 200 mhz performance wise won't be a HUGE difference...

i think most people here at AT are price conscious.... wanting the best bang for your buck...

but you have to realize that you have to pay to get the best though...

worth it for some... not worth it for others...

if price is no issue for you, then go visit xtremesystems and see what you can do with a $800 dollar FX chip...

perosnally for me... i want the highest clockspeed possible and i'm willing to pay that extra 100% to get that 10% of difference... but to each his/her own...

let's just try to get along here

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: thanasi
hum let see,lets get down to detail you wanna go to war ok,When you have an amd 4000 say 2.4 and an amd 3700 2.2 ,then you clock it an extra 200 mhz,the amd 4000 will still preform better,But not noticabally,but it still will,Of course I rather get the 3700 but if it was down to benchmarks the 3700 overclocked to 2.4 will lose to amd 4000 2.4.Save your cans and nickles,You wanna get what the 3200 939 venice?lol.GO and look there isnt a noticable difference in performance between the other 3200,but you can have a fighting chance saying what 2 percent increase,or maybe the socket 754 it had single channel memmory but again dual channel with amd realy is alot bigger peformance gain only with intels.

the best deal you should get is a pentium 100 mhz overclock to 5000ghz now thats a performance gain worth fighting about lol

You're an idiot, and you're wrong... go home.

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: thanasi
hum let see,lets get down to detail you wanna go to war ok,When you have an amd 4000 say 2.4 and an amd 3700 2.2 ,then you clock it an extra 200 mhz,the amd 4000 will still preform better,But not noticabally,but it still will,Of course I rather get the 3700 but if it was down to benchmarks the 3700 overclocked to 2.4 will lose to amd 4000 2.4.Save your cans and nickles,You wanna get what the 3200 939 venice?lol.GO and look there isnt a noticable difference in performance between the other 3200,but you can have a fighting chance saying what 2 percent increase,or maybe the socket 754 it had single channel memmory but again dual channel with amd realy is alot bigger peformance gain only with intels.

the best deal you should get is a pentium 100 mhz overclock to 5000ghz now thats a performance gain worth fighting about lol

Okay, I'll see if I can translate this Shakespeare masterwork for you.
Here we go:

"
Uhm, let's see.
Let's get down to detail.
You want to go to war?
OK!
When you have an AMD Athlon 64 4000+ running at (for example) 2.4 GHz, and you have an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ running at (for example) 2.2 GHz, and if you overclock this AMD Athlon 64 3700+ by another 200 MHz, resulting in an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ running at 2.4 GHz, the AMD Athlon 64 4000+ would outperform this AMD Athlon 3700+ running at 2.4 GHz.
But it is not easy to notice this.
But, of course, it still will perform better.
And, I would rather get an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ than an AMD Athlon 64 4000+.
This because, when these two processors should be benchmarked, the AMD Athlon 64 3700+ would lose to the AMD Athlon 64 4000+. (Really, what's going on in here? I don't get the point)
Save your money.
Do you want to get an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (Socket 939) with a Venice core?
I am laughing out loud, in your face.
Please, see for yourself.
A difference in performance would not be noticable.
Unless, of course, you could notice the 2% increase.
Or, maybe, you should get a motherboard with a 754 Socket.
These have single channel memory, but, I must tell you again, when one would see what the results would be in a competition between AMD and Intel, the AMD would win, in terms of dual channel memory performance.
The best deal I can offer you is a Pentium (I) standardly running at 100 MHz, overclocked to 5.000 GHz.
That is a performance gain people shall fight for.
Once again, I am laughing out loud.
"
Hi all, I'm Vegitto, I'm new here. Happy to serve you .

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

God damnit thanasi, have you ever heard of periods? You sound like an immature 5 year old -_-;

 

[BitByBit]

LOL, Vegitto, nicely done.

Aside from the other absurdities of Thansai's post, one did stand out.
The part about a stock 4000+ outperforming an overclocked SD 3700+.
Both cores have 1MB L2 caches, and an overclocked 3700+ will atleast equal, if not surpass, the performance of the 4000+ (overclocked memory bus).

Neither Intel nor AMD revise each successive processor speed release; a 3200+ Winchester is indentical to a 3000+, aside from the higher multiplier.

 

[Vegitto]

Yeah, that's what I thought. A 3700+ San Diego will outperform a 4000+ (Claw)Hammer. You can count on it, when a core's newer, it'll outperform the previous. Because, if it wouldn't, they wouldn't even think of releasing it.

 

[Necrolezbeast]

Originally posted by: Vegitto
Yeah, that's what I thought. A 3700+ San Diego will outperform a 4000+ (Claw)Hammer. You can count on it, when a core's newer, it'll outperform the previous. Because, if it wouldn't, they wouldn't even think of releasing it.

Except if we are comparing Northwoods and Prescotts....Although at higher frequencies, upper 3ghz, the Prescott did show speed increases clock for clock...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: thanasi
hum let see,lets get down to detail you wanna go to war ok,When you have an amd 4000 say 2.4 and an amd 3700 2.2 ,then you clock it an extra 200 mhz,the amd 4000 will still preform better,But not noticabally,but it still will,Of course I rather get the 3700 but if it was down to benchmarks the 3700 overclocked to 2.4 will lose to amd 4000 2.4.Save your cans and nickles,You wanna get what the 3200 939 venice?lol.GO and look there isnt a noticable difference in performance between the other 3200,but you can have a fighting chance saying what 2 percent increase,or maybe the socket 754 it had single channel memmory but again dual channel with amd realy is alot bigger peformance gain only with intels.

the best deal you should get is a pentium 100 mhz overclock to 5000ghz now thats a performance gain worth fighting about lol

:laugh::thumbsdown:
You're just wrong period. My inexpensive 3000 overclcoked to 2600Mhz beats an FX-55 in almost every benchmark. I proved that in my memory threads, just compare the numbers to reviews at techreport. Why? Because to get a 3000 to run at FX-55 speeds you overclock the memory bus signifigantly (237Mhz or 290Mhz) while the 55 runs a stock memory bus of 200Mhz. If you keep the same or similar low timings the increased bandwidth can make up for the 3000's lack of LVL2 cache.

A 3700 OCed to 4000 or 55 levels will also beat a stock 4000 or 55 respectivly *everytime*!!!!! That's whats so great about overclcoking!!! You can run even faster than expensive chips due to bandwidth and bus.

Notice when guys at xtreme even have expensive processors like the FX55 and overclock, they'll lower it's stock multiplier down to say what the 3700's is, then start overclocking.

Cliffs: You are ignorant.