kirr45 Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Hey. I am building a computer for my cousin. He has put his foot down on the 3800+ AMD. I was just wondering if you think the Venice or the other one is better. I just for got the other one's name. If you could say which one is better and why that would be great. Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_cow Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 San diego? That ones pretty good too but not having tried either i wouldnt be able to judge. Will you be overclocking it by any chance? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 The 3800+ Venice will be just fine. The Venice core is just a better version of the winnie core. The best core performance wise seems to be the San Diego, but they don't have a 3800+ version of it that I know of. For best performance I would recommend he get a 3700+ San Diego rather than the 3800+ Venice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirr45 Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 The 3800+ Venice will be just fine. The Venice core is just a better version of the winnie core. The best core performance wise seems to be the San Diego, but they don't have a 3800+ version of it that I know of. For best performance I would recommend he get a 3700+ San Diego rather than the 3800+ Venice. 496741[/snapback] What is so special about the San Diego. Besides the 3700+ is 754 and that is being phased out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 What is so special about the San Diego. Besides the 3700+ is 754 and that is being phased out. 496743[/snapback] Wrong the 3700+(SD) is s939. There really isn't a whole lot of physical difference between the Venice and San Diego other than the San Diego has a 1mb of L2 cache, but for some reason from what I have seen the SD seems to score better than the Venice. Honestly I say go with whichever of the two is cheaper. If the 3800(Venice) is cheaper then get it or if the 3700(SD) is cheaper than get it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirr45 Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Wrong the 3700+(SD) is s939. There really isn't a whole lot of physical difference between the Venice and San Diego other than the San Diego has a 1mb of L2 cache, but for some reason from what I have seen the SD seems to score better than the Venice. Honestly I say go with whichever of the two is cheaper. If the 3800(Venice) is cheaper then get it or if the 3700(SD) is cheaper than get it. 496760[/snapback] I thought it was 754. Obviously you can tell I didn't do y homework on the 3700+. I only studied the others like 3500+, 3800+, and 4000+ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 There is a 3700+ s754. That is where you seem to be getting confuzed. There are two different 3700's, one is s754 and the other is s939. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirr45 Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 There is a 3700+ s754. That is where you seem to be getting confuzed. There are two different 3700's, one is s754 and the other is s939. 496767[/snapback] dang i missed it. I just assumed that if one of them was, then the other one would be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silkster Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 There is a 3700+ (skt 754) Clawhammer core. From what I've read some socket 754 chips outperform 939 chips on real world experience, not benchmarks though. For some reason I'm always seeing problems with some cores, AMD keeps making different cores with the same pin arrangments. 1st core that came out for 64bit AMD was the Clawhammer, If I am going to upgrade Athlon64, it's definitely going to be a Clawhammer. I keep eyeing that 3700+ clawhammer on newegg, its so dirt cheap and people are saying that they're so fast. If I go socket 939, It would have to be the 3500+ or 4000+. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirr45 Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 There is a 3700+ (skt 754) Clawhammer core. From what I've read some socket 754 chips outperform 939 chips on real world experience, not benchmarks though. For some reason I'm always seeing problems with some cores, AMD keeps making different cores with the same pin arrangments. 1st core that came out for 64bit AMD was the Clawhammer, If I am going to upgrade Athlon64, it's definitely going to be a Clawhammer. I keep eyeing that 3700+ clawhammer on newegg, its so dirt cheap and people are saying that they're so fast. If I go socket 939, It would have to be the 3500+ or 4000+. 496771[/snapback] But as you know the 754 is not as upgradeable as the 939. So the question is y go with 754? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 You should only go with 754 if you are on a really tight budget. Of course, if that is the case, then you would be looking at the Sempron line rather than the Athlon64s. For future upgradability and the latest mobo features, I would suggest you go with socket 939 on a nForce4 motherboard such as the DFI LanParty UT NF4 or a MSI K8N Neo4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 s754 has become the tight budget realm for AMD. If you want gaming power and future upgradability might as well go s939. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now