• 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.

So whats this new 3700+ San Diego (rev-E), can this really be clocked to FX57 speeds and spec

RichUK

RichUK

Lifer
I have heard bits and bobs about this new chip, but nothing iron clad, would you guys be able to fill me in on the tech specs, and potential OC from the CPU...

AFAIK

3700+
S939
1mb cache (not sure on that tho)
and obviously a rev-E chip

What clock is this going to be 2.4/2.6 ???

Is there massive OC potential in this chip, i have heard people talikng about FX59 OC speeds :shocked:

Rich
 
2.2 Ghz, 1 mb L2, 11X multi, dual channel 939, RevE4, BN product code, estimated street $320

Basically a FX for less if you OC.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
2.2 Ghz, 1 mb L2, 11X multi, dual channel 939, RevE4, BN product code, estimated street $320

Basically a FX for less if you OC.
Click to expand...

Do you think that these chips are going to OC on par with what we have seen from the Venice i.e. being able to OC to 2.8 aka FX57... or is there a possibility that it might OC better.. the reason i ask is because as far as i know the venice and the San Diego use diff technologies, as i have heard the san diego will use strained silicon and the venice will use sSOI along with another technology ... does this mean that the 3700+ might be able to OC better ... in any case if this can be clocked to FX57 speeds or higher then i will be very interested...
 
Originally posted by: RichUK
Originally posted by: Zebo
2.2 Ghz, 1 mb L2, 11X multi, dual channel 939, RevE4, BN product code, estimated street $320

Basically a FX for less if you OC.
Click to expand...

Do you think that these chips are going to OC on par with what we have seen from the Venice i.e. being able to OC to 2.8 aka FX57... or is there a possibility that it might OC better.. the reason i ask is because as far as i know the venice and the San Diego use diff technologies, as i have heard the san diego will use strained silicon and the venice will use sSOI along with another technology ... does this mean that the 3700+ might be able to OC better ... in any case if this can be clocked to FX57 speeds or higher then i will be very interested...
Click to expand...

My guess is that they'll overclock a tad higher on average, the advantage over Venice isn't as high as Clawhammer had over Newcastle, but an advantage should still be there, that's why you're going to have to pay a lot for it.

Its too bad AMD didn't give us more budget oriented overclockers a true gem with a 3500+ or lower SanDiego part (with the full 1MB of cache), when you start paying well over $200, it just isn't worth it for those of us who squeeze $500+ performance out of $150 parts
 
They better OC otherwise you are paying 320.00 for a 3500+ venice with maybe a 1.5-2% gain for the cache....not worth a 3700+ rating and at the cost a 3800+ venice wil beat it in almost everything.... for like 380.00

The cheapest I could find the 3700+ 1mb chips was 334.00.....

BUt if it can hit 2.8ghz at stock it may not be bad, but lets see what the venice chips as well....2.8ghz isn't that great considering I saw both the venice 3500+a dn 3800+ do that ocing recently....
 
maybe the 3700+ wont be a good buy then ... i mean that 1Mb cache is so tempting, when being able to possibily OC to 3.0 Ghz that would be so SSUUUWWWEEEEEEEEEEETTT !!! ... haha probs not going to happen tho

so would these procs respond well to volts and water, the san diego that is? and also the venice i suppose (although i have heard that volts are not loved by the venice) ?
 
I saw a badly translated German review of the 3700+ at xtremesystems.org, where the reviewer got 2772 on stock vcore, and with 1.55v he could get 3030 prime stable, but increased voltage from the DFI board didn't provide any higher. But it wasn't exactly clear what cooling he was using. Although in his summation he makes the comment "3.0ghz on air is no longer a dream", "these new chips will wipe the floor with venice and winchester, they will be selling like hotcakes soon"

There is also a suicide screenie of a 4000+ @ 3.3ghz on 1.4v:Q floating around, seems a little suspect at 1.4v even with extreme cooling.
 
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I saw a badly translated German review of the 3700+ at xtremesystems.org, where the reviewer got 2772 on stock vcore, and with 1.55v he could get 3030 prime stable, but increased voltage from the DFI board didn't provide any higher. But it wasn't exactly clear what cooling he was using. Although in his summation he makes the comment "3.0ghz on air is no longer a dream", "these new chips will wipe the floor with venice and winchester, they will be selling like hotcakes soon"

There is also a suicide screenie of a 4000+ @ 3.3ghz on 1.4v:Q floating around, seems a little suspect at 1.4v even with extreme cooling.
Click to expand...

is the 4000+ a san diego?

so would you say that on the more expensive higher PR chips, have beter yeilds ??

 
Originally posted by: RichUK

is the 4000+ a san diego?

so would you say that on the more expensive higher PR chips, have beter yeilds ??
Click to expand...

Yes the 4000+ is an SD.

As to better yeilds its impossible to tell yet, but I would certainly hope so otherwize whats the point of releasing your flagship line in this new proccess.

It is starting to look like the inability to make use of higher voltages is a characteristic of the 90nm process. Winchester, Venice, and now San diego don't seem to benefit from crazy voltages
 
Worth it? No way. Only A64 worth it is 3000.😀 Now If AMD released a 1mb lvl2 chip@1.8 for $175 that might be worth it.
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
They better OC otherwise you are paying 320.00 for a 3500+ venice with maybe a 1.5-2% gain for the cache....not worth a 3700+ rating and at the cost a 3800+ venice wil beat it in almost everything.... for like 380.00

The cheapest I could find the 3700+ 1mb chips was 334.00.....

BUt if it can hit 2.8ghz at stock it may not be bad, but lets see what the venice chips as well....2.8ghz isn't that great considering I saw both the venice 3500+a dn 3800+ do that ocing recently....
Click to expand...
You keep thinking that.
lvl 2 is more than 1-2% in Games and stuff.
5%
8%

But I can admit being wrong😛.. Globally speaking it's 2% since many tests are dead even. http://www.behardware.com/articles/525/page10.html

Just have to decide if 5% in games is worth ti. No.
 
Lets see... if 380USD can get me 5% more framerate that I will MOST CERTAINLY not notice, thanks to the added cache... Yup! Defenetly worth it.

*note: the previous post was a sarcasm and is not meant to reflect the real mind of a fanboy. Any similitude to reality is mere coincidence.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Duvie
They better OC otherwise you are paying 320.00 for a 3500+ venice with maybe a 1.5-2% gain for the cache....not worth a 3700+ rating and at the cost a 3800+ venice wil beat it in almost everything.... for like 380.00

The cheapest I could find the 3700+ 1mb chips was 334.00.....

BUt if it can hit 2.8ghz at stock it may not be bad, but lets see what the venice chips as well....2.8ghz isn't that great considering I saw both the venice 3500+a dn 3800+ do that ocing recently....
Click to expand...
You keep thinking that.
lvl 2 is more than 1-2% in Games and stuff.
5%
8%

But I can admit being wrong😛.. Globally speaking it's 2% since many tests are dead even. http://www.behardware.com/articles/525/page10.html

Just have to decide if 5% in games is worth ti. No.
Click to expand...



Cmon Zeb...you give me 2 examples when I gave you more then a dozen?? Also go back to my post where I said games show it more so, but in the majority of all apps it does not deliver and AT and Xbit show it in their reviews, period!!!! I can list you 4 examples right now where it is 2.5% or less...Will you find some more???




One thing you need to remember is that the majority of the claims when you show a 3800+ newcastle versus the 4000+ is that Dual channel memory controllers makes a big difference in games most of all...if there is any place bandwidth helps is games...So no surpirse the lead is bigger against the SC....You will not have that big of gains against say a winchester of similar speed due to the DC memory controller....and the 90nm process alone did not make that big of a deal...The most comparable is probably a winchester versus the clawhammer pre E4 revisions....

That being said the world doesn't revolove around games!!!


Edit;

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-15.html

Look at the 3400+ newcastle versus the 3400+ clawhammer...howmuch does it lose by??? doesn't appear to earn it rating huh??? It is closer to the 3200+ winchester and its DC memory controller then itis the Newcastle and its "weaker" CS...

Then look at the 3200 where we have a clawhammer versus an exact speed winchester...both DC but the winchester embarasses the clawhammer by almost 4%...It appears this chip should have been branded a higher PR.....YOu cant say it is all 90nm core of the winchester cause it doesn't beat the NC at 3200+......If you look at the data it looks like the DCH memory controller is worth 1.5% of the gain by itself....So agin start comparing a DC chip without 1mb of cache and you dont have those percentage increases to justify the speed rating....


We can ofcourse agree to disagree!!!
 
further more to the san diego .. would you say that maybe the Fx57 might be able to hit over 3.2Ghz or more on air/water ?? could it be done... and what do you think the pricing of this chip is going to be ... (probs a total waste of money tho)

Rich
 
Probably be 900+ and fill in where the FX55 was just a few months ago.....It is like AMDs idiot EE level.....An FX55 is still like 800+ now...
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
Probably be 900+ and fill in where the FX55 was just a few months ago.....It is like AMDs idiot EE level.....An FX55 is still like 800+ now...
Click to expand...

So FX57 is still only going to be for the rich boyz then ... Shame ... this 3700+ has me thinking tho, i have a MSI K8N neo2 as you can see by my sig, and i am wondering that if i do venture to buy would it work on my mobo, cuz only venice is supported at the mo AFAIK
 
It appears there is confirmation of a 3700+....


See what new claws come out and see how they OC and then pick from the best price...The price may make it worth just getting a 3500+ to 3700+ venice and still may get to 3.0ghz....

 
Duvie I don't see how we disagree. I agree with everything you said but don't paint 1-2%. It's not fair when many are buying AMD processors for it's gaming capabilites so 5% there is worth highlighting.. that's all.
 
Problem is some etailers cant confirm the 3700+ even exist....check out joemonarch talking about it in the venice thread.....



I think what he was questioning was wether or not it had shipped not if it exists.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Duvie I don't see how we disagree. I agree with everything you said but don't paint 1-2%. It's not fair when many are buying AMD processors for it's gaming capabilites so 5% there is worth highlighting.. that's all.
Click to expand...



i am sorry I didn't know it is called a gaming chip...mayeb it should have multiple PR ratings....

If it cant deliver acorss the board and only does in one sector it doesn't deserve the rating.

Oops...It appears the 3800+ is a sckt 939 chips so it is a dual channel chip!!!!


I apologize my bad.....

It still doesn't deliver 5's across the board but in gaming and for the gamers it may very well be worth its numbers....


Update...Loking at topms article...comparing a Newcastle 3800+ vs the 4000+ claw....differnce is cache size....

Quake 3 arena - 7.5% in one test and 2% in the other
Wolfenstein - 1.5%
Doom 3 - 2.2%
UT2004 - 4.4%
Farcry - 2.6%

Only one did it there!!!


Xbit test

Quake 3 arena - 7.1%
Half Life2 - 8.2%
Doom 3 - 2.6%
UT2004 - 6.1%
Farcry - 2.5%

Anandtech

halo 1.5 - 1.8%
Half Life2/counterstrike - 8.2%
Doom 3 - 3.5%
UT2004 - 4.9%
Farcry - 2.3%
Warcraft 3 - 0.0%
Wolfenstein - 1.7%
The Sims 2 - 2.0%
Battlefield vietnam - 0.0%
Starwars Battelfront - 0.7%


So basically I dont see an average of 5% in all of those test....so should we continue further and say only for ppl who game adn who use 3-4 main games??? Seems pretty exclusionary....

 
i suppose that would depend on the latencies of the L2 cache on the new chips (venice and san diego) if not the same as they are with winnies claws etc...
 
It looks like the xbit review has got the top 5 games all relatively new releases and it averages 5.3%, but as games get more demanding and we move to a 64bit OS this advantage can only increase.

But I agree that 5% in games is not worth the 200 pr points. To overclockers like us PR ratings mean nothing anyway, you guys with your 3000's running FX56 speeds😉
If these babies clock from 2.2 to 2.9 on air, they can rate them anything they want.😎
 
That is all I am saying...the PR rating is a joke and I only talk in ghz...I dont try to say 3000+@4200+ speeds...I say 2.66ghz....that means something. Cache means zippo in my multimedia apps and CAD stuff....
 
The smart thing is to get the 3700 ill give you a couple reason
1. First off you can def hit 2.5 which is great
2.It has 1 mb l2 cache so video encoding and other apps will run faster then 512
3.If you already have 512 cache why upgrade to the same cache
4.you can clock it as fast as the amd 4000 so you save 200 bucks so your wondering but the amd 4000 is faster but with the extra 200 you get 2 gbs so you just out preformed it right there vs amd 4000 1 gb.
5.I bet you if i put amd 4000 and 3700 you wouldnt even tell the difference so why waste the extra doe.
6.the main reason price this is the up and comming chip get it before they try locking it to herb you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top