LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksVenice? Never heard of it!
Get a San Diego 3700+!
Venice? Never heard of it!
Get a San Diego 3700+!
Hello, thanks for the quick walkthrough about overclocking.
The thing is even at 3200+ the speed would be ample for me, the 3800 Just sounds so much better. I'm a sucker for names and logos.
So if I am not going to be overclocking (sorry for wasting your time for the walkthrough but I only like moving sliders up and down to overclock + 3200 would be ample but 3800 sounds nice)
Which would be better, the 3700+ San Diego or 3800+ Venice?
3700+ San Diego would probably beat the snot out of a 3800+ Venice unless you got an exceptional Venice. Clock for clock the 3700+ would whip up on the 3800+.
Yeah, but since he doesn't plan on overclocking, they won't be running at the same clockspeed will they? The extra 1mb cache seems to give an extra 1000 points or so in 3DMark01, which is round about a 5% increase. As far as I can tell most other games and apps don't see such a benefit. The 3800 runs 200MHz faster than the 3700, close to a 10% increase, which will IMO make it overall just a smidge faster than the 3700- hence it's very slightly higher model rating.
That's not to say don't get the 3700 San Diego though alexander; it'll be a small speed boost from your 3500, it'll run a tiny bit cooler than the 3800 and a lot cooler than your current proc.
It's rediculous to upgrade from a 3500+ to a 3700+ or 3800+. The difference in performance is not substantial at all. It is not worth the money.
Read the thread again. He wants a cooler running processor.
So get better cooling. You don't need a new CPU to make it run cooler.
Also, if he's not overclocking why did you feel it necessary to go through the rant about this CPU overclocking to this speed at stock volts, etc...
You said this, right? "If you were to buy a 3200 Venice, there's IMO a 99% chance that it'll run at 2.2GHz with stock volts, and a 90+% chance that it'll do 2.4GHz, also at stock volts. You can make sure that the rest of the system will cope by doing a quick overclocking check now."
Why are you always so argumentative dude?
Last edited by StormPC; 19-05-2005 at 05:54 PM.
Totally agree.Originally Posted by StormPC
Grab a XP-120 or XP-90 with a nice low DBA fan.
Hi, thanks for the replies.
Rave was merely trying to help me as I said I had no clue about overclocking.
It is not the temperature of my CPU but the heat given out is always going to be the same, even if it disipates quicker from the heatsink etc.
I could definately make the CPU cooler by putting it up further than 5 volts, it is a Freezer 64.
At 5 volts it is hardly spinning, I get annoyed with loud computers.
Think I'm going to get a San Diego as they sound pretty good and I don't like the name Venice.
Sorry, I thought we were talking a different type of coolness.
Temps will be lower on the Venice because of the cache. For many things the San Diego will be faster, even stock. Cache is more important than many would have you believe. Just ask anyone with an Itanium2. 6MB L3!
Last edited by StormPC; 19-05-2005 at 07:23 PM.
No, but if he gets a CPU that's only kicking out 35W instead of 70W, then he can keep his current CPU cooler and need less case cooling, which will be quieter, which as I understand it is what he wants. His computer will use less electricity and pump out less heat as well.
Yes, and then he said:Also, if he's not overclocking why did you feel it necessary to go through the rant about this CPU overclocking to this speed at stock volts, etc...
You said this, right?
You see? Read the thread.
Because more often than not I think you give bad advice. You don't read the thread and you assume that everyone wants the same out of a computer as you. Not all of us have a lot of money to spend on extreme gaming performance.Why are you always so argumentative dude?
Got proof? As I understand it cache levels don't make a great deal of difference to processor heat output, whereas it scales linearly with clockspeed- and the Venice runs, as I've said, nearly 10% faster.Temps will be lower on the Venice because of the cache.
Right, and what are these 'many things'? Let's see the comparative benchmarks to back up that assertion.For many things the San Diego will be faster, even stock. Cache is more important than many would have you believe.
Dude, your reasons for getting a new CPU make no sense at all.
Storm, a 3700+ SD is slower than the 3800+. Sure 1mb is nice, but it's not that bigger increase.
Have you considered underclocking your existing CPU?
Just a thought.
DFI LanParty UT NF4 SLI-D; AMD64 3500+ Winchester ;
2x XFX 6600GT ; Corsair XMS3200XLPRO TWINX 1GB;
Dell 2405FPW TFT.
What did I advise? Put the crack pie down for awhile, eh? I simply gave him information. I'm not interested in telling him what he wants, that's for him to decide.
You're really good at taking comments out of context. Why don't you try reading MY entire post? Do you understand what context is? Instead of reading the individual sentences and responding as if they are each a seperate point (which they are not) why not read the entire post and attempt to understand what I'm actually saying?
Pick a fight elsewhere Rave, I'm not interested.
Smokey,
Have a look at the benchmarks and I think you'll see the 1MB chips are quite a bit stronger clock for clock than the 512K ones.
Hi, this arguing is making me feel guilty, you have all been helpful and any points of view are good as it gives me a good horizon on what people think.
Just please stop arguing
But there not clock for clock.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
