3200 Venice Hitting 2.8?

[Puck]

Mine will do 2.85 for benches, and it's a 3000+ Venice.

511385[/snapback]

With my POS psu my winnie was benching at 2.7ghz, but not stable for prime/occt. 1.74v 24/7 is *crazy* for a winnie, especially with the stock cooler

[r_target]

I just downgraded from a 3800 newkie to a 3700 sandy to see if I can maybe hit 3 ghz.

511341[/snapback]

Hmmmm...I would consider that an upgrade. B:)

[battery]

lol well all winter i jsut left my window to my room open...so my ambients temps were insanely low

[Nerm]

Just because a 3200+ venice hits the same clock speed as your 4000+ doesn't mean that it will out perform it at that same clock speed.

[flashystylez]

Just because a 3200+ venice hits the same clock speed as your 4000+ doesn't mean that it will out perform it at that same clock speed.

512003[/snapback]

 

 

well at least that makes me feel better! lol

[swifty11212]

a 3200 venice only had 512kb of lvl2 cache (640 cache total) while the 4000 has 1mb (1152 total cache), so because of the extra cache, it will run better than the 3200. however if u look at intel, they put 2mb of cache, but that hindered performance.

[Waco]

a 3200 venice only had 512kb of lvl2 cache (640 cache total) while the 4000 has 1mb (1152 total cache), so because of the extra cache, it will run better than the 3200. however if u look at intel, they put 2mb of cache, but that hindered performance.

512088[/snapback]

It didn't hinder performance clock-per-clock, it just limited it's clockability. Right?

[Guest FxXP]

I believe the term is "overcaching". 512KB will do for most applications and 1MB helps some more. However, the more cache you have, the CPU has to work harder to keep up.

[swifty11212]

im not sure, i was reading a review of this at toms hardware i think, any ways it had benchmarks proving that the 2mb cache wasnt performing as good as some other procs compared. gotta see if i can find this and post a link.

[Puck]

im not sure, i was reading a review of this at toms hardware i think, any ways it had benchmarks proving that the 2mb cache wasnt performing as good as some other procs compared. gotta see if i can find this and post a link.

512098[/snapback]

More on chip cache = hotter chip and higher cache latencies. Some people are trying to overcome this however by using stacked cache systems in processors. The heat from all that cache severly crippled the speed at which p4's were coming out as - effectively ending the p4 line. Now Intel is starting to focus on dual core cpus, as they cannot increase the chip speed nearly as fast as they used to.

[Guest Flashstar]

They should just drop the extra cache because it does almost nothing to boost the power of a p4.

[Guest FxXP]

In a regular user environment, that may be the case. You must understand Intel's marketing ethics, which is more focused on business. In a server, cache can make a lot of difference in how background tasks are performed.