• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is there a huge difference?

M

mOeeOm

Platinum Member
Betwen the 3800+ Venice/Newcastle and the 3700+ San diego? Does the 1MB cache make a great difference? The reason I am asking is because a local store is selling the 3800+ Venice/Newcastle at the same price as a San Diego 3700+, but to get the SD I would have to order online. I would rather much buy it from a local store if the difference in performance is minimal.
 
The stock performace of the two chips is about the same: Venice at 2.4GHz and San Diego at 2.2GHz.
Ocing the 3700 to 4000 (2.4, same as 3800) speeds will give you a bigger performance boost, plus you can OC higher with the lower clocked chip.
Plus the 1MB cache will give better performance in games, and will show better performance at higher clock speeds than the 512K.
 
Ok, we do not know that the 3700 will overclock better than the 3800. Yes i read reviews. CAche isnt everything too. You read reviews comparing a processor with more cache with the same clock speeds. On some applications there is 0% improvement! Also overclocking is all luck of the draw. He may get a dud san diego and only be able to get to 2.3. Or he may get a dud venice also. It isn't garenteed.

This is where I got the numbers from. I did alot of research on the benefits of increased cache when deciding on my processor.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=219
 
If you want to OC, the 3700 is the way to go. You can reach higher speeds by starting out with a slower chip, and higher cache begins to show its advantages at higher clock speeds. Besides, the 3700 is cheaper. If you want more powerful stock for gaming, go with the 3800 if you're not going to OC and you don't mind paying $50 more.
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
Ok, we do not know that the 3700 will overclock better than the 3800. Yes i read reviews. CAche isnt everything too. You read reviews comparing a processor with more cache with the same clock speeds. On some applications there is 0% improvement! Also overclocking is all luck of the draw. He may get a dud san diego and only be able to get to 2.3. Or he may get a dud venice also. It isn't garenteed.

This is where I got the numbers from. I did alot of research on the benefits of increased cache when deciding on my processor.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=219
Click to expand...

I don't put much stock in that review, Linux OS who uses that? I will agree that in non gaming apps the diff is small 3-5%, but in my testing the 1mb cache gave me 15-18% increases in games like HL2, Doom3, and X2 the threat, clock for clock.

And I have yet to see a SD3700+ that wouldn't overclock past 2.7ghz. I run mine 24/7 at 2805mhz and here is my best O/C so far

CPUZ verified 2906mhz
 
Because the OP has seen a 3800+ at the same price is the 3700+, but I'm guessing its the older Newcastle. Nowhere have I seen a Venice 3800+ for the same price as the 3700+
 
Because he can buy it for the same price. He can buy the 3800+ for the same price as he can buy the 3700+. Also, if it is a newcastle compared to a sandiego, get the sandiego. I would still get the venice over the sandiego though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top