Which processor would you pick

[cich1012]

AMD ATHLON 64 3700+ W/1MB CACHE 90NM (SAN DIEGO) 939

or


AMD ATHLON 64 3500+ W/512KB CACHE 90NM (VENICE) 64-BIT SOCKET 939

running with bfg 7800 gtx oc

 

[peleejosh]

the 3700+, no question

 

[JBT]

Of course the 3700+...

 

[Leper Messiah]

depends on how much you're willing to spend. the SD is much better, but the venice is cheaper.

 

[theMan]

is money an issue? no wait, you're getting a 7800 nvm. its obvious, get the 3700. its one of their best chips. especially for overclocking. umm, you should also consider getting an evga 7800gtx ko. the review on anandtech was pretty amazing.

 

[thegimp03]

3700

 

[cich1012]

will the 3500 bottleneck even if its clock from 2.2 to 2.75 stable??

or is it because the 512 cache vs the 1 meg cache

 

[monster64]

Depends on the game. Doom 3-Very video intense, so the cpu wouldn't really be a bottleneck. HL2- some maps are very cpu intensive, and a faster cpu will be better than a faster video card.

 

[anandtechrocks]

All these votes for the 3700+ when they are the same clock speed but the 3500+ is ~$60 cheaper?

I know I've said it a lot, but I've got a 3200+ Vience and a 3700+ SD and when clocked to the same speed, I don't notice a difference at all in anything. The highest OC is the same for both, so there is no advantage there. Personally I'd skip both the 3500+ and the 3700+ and go with the 3200. It has the 10x mulitplier which is more usefull to me than the 11x on those other two and is much cheaper.

Also the E6 revisions are supposed to be great overclockers and those are only in the Vience flavors...

 

[Munky]

How about a 3000 venice and OC it to 4000 speeds? My runs stable at 2.6ghz, and usually all 3000 venice cores oc to 2.5ghz or higher. Unless you don't plan to OC, or like to spend money...

 

[coomar]

i think the san diego overclocks a bit better, you have a good shot of hitting 2.8

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: JBT
Of course the 3700+...

 

[Dothan]

do yourself a favor, get pentium D 840, non-EE. same price as the 3700 san diegos but much faster !!!

 

[lifeguard1999]

[/b]munky[/b] is right. My 3000+ venice ($140) is running at 2.7 GHz which is faster than the 3700+ ($270), though it lacks the cache. But if those are your only two choices, go with the 3700+

 

[n7]

SD 3700+ or Venice 3200+.

3500+ Venice is not worth buying, since nearly every 3200+ will OC to the same speed a 3500+ can.

 

[lifeguard1999]

The advantage of the 3200+ is that it has a 10X multiplier for overclocking.

 

[rothchilds]

Originally posted by: n7
SD 3700+ or Venice 3200+.

3500+ Venice is not worth buying, since nearly every 3200+ will OC to the same speed a 3500+ can.

with recent price drops, if you are buying new, you can pick up a 3500 for only slightly more than the 3200...