New Processor 3500+ Venice, or 3700+ San Diego

[spitz10]

I know this topic has been discussed frequently, but it seems as though things are changing every day and new discoveries are being made.

So I have a very easy basic question (take that note that like everyone else, I am on a budget, and the $35 difference between the 3500 and 3700 is important to me):

Which processors is better for me, the 3500+ venice, or the 3700+ SD?

As far as overclocking goes, I would only do a little bit, and wouldnt want to put TOO much stress on the CPU.

Also here is the rest of my rig:

Asus A8R-MVP
Arctic cooling 64 pro
MSI X1800XT
2 gb Corsair XMS
1 36 gb raptor
2 extra hard drives
2 optical dvd drives


Thanks for any help and input!!

 

[pkme2]

The 3800+ would be better with that setup.

 

[spitz10]

i agree, but i just dont think im willing to spend the extra $100 considering i can get the 3700+ for 183 OEM from ewiz with a $25 arctic cooling pro. Im really trying to stick to either the 3500 or 3700.

 

[pkme2]

Have you considered buying on AT. I got a super deal on a X2 4400+ last month from another ATer. Just a thought......

 

[A554SS1N]

Between the 3500+ and 3700+, for gaming, the 3700+ is certainly going to be useful, but it won't provide any general performance boost in standard applications. For me, as I'm also on a budget and considering a similar choice, that kind of difference in price wouldn't be worth paying the exra, but the simple matter is, if you can afford it, then get it, as extra speed is always useful - the 3700+ seemed to do well in Anandtech's Oblivion CPU performance review against a 3800+ (i.e. it was better!!). But bear in mind that's just one game....

 

[F1shF4t]

meh, just get the 3200+ if ur going single core and overclock it slightly, no use spending money on a more expensive one, as that 200mhz and extra cashe will be almost useless for ur set up, at max settings ur x1800xt will be the limiting factor anyways.

 

[spitz10]

Anyone else have an opinion?

 

[Pyrokinetic]

If you want to save the money, go with the cheaper one. I have a 3700+ overclocked to 2.77Ghz, and I like it; but you probably wouldn't notice a difference between similiarly clocked Venice and San Diego cores as the only major difference is the L2 cache.

The San Diego only gives about a 3% (and that is debatable) performance boost over the Venice clock-for-clock, and the extra L2 cache is only really useful in coding and compiling or other CPU intensive tasking. For general use, the performance difference is basically nil.
Read the conclusions page on a core comparison Phoronix did in July of 2005:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=219&num=5

Since you are on a budget, save yourself $50 and go with the 3200+. It is easily overclockable to 2.4Ghz. Only get the other two if you plan to overclock to 2.6Ghz or higher, otherwise you are wasting money.

 

[Fallengod]

You can get an opteron 146 oem new for $160 or so shipped at monarch. Thats what id get. Or maybe a $120 opty 144 which monarch has now as well.

 

[Effect]

I'd suggest a 3200+ (with that AC freezer 64), pump it up to 2.2-2.4ghz (both SHOULD be about as safe as overclocking gets, at stock volt's if possible), at 2.4ghz it'll outperform either the 35/3700+, and it'll be cheaper.

 

[soloz2]

get the 3700+ !!!! it's got double the cache and a higher multi for when you do OC. Plus the SD cores tend to OC much better than the Venice cores. most 3700+ will do 2.8Ghz on air, while w/ a venice you're get to about 2.7Ghz. the newer 3700+'s have been doing 2.8-3.0Ghz on air.

for the money the 3700+ is definately the winner, double the cache is worth it alone. Trust me, I went from a 3200+ venice to an opty 148 which is basically a 3700+SD