Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Venice VS San Diego

  1. #1
    Almost in control. autopilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Region 2
    Posts
    4,071
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    12 times in 11 posts

    Venice VS San Diego

    Just wondering which was best A64 type really. I thought San Diego was the newest and best, but an article in CustomPC seem's to say the Venice is best.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Go for San Diego, has 1MB L2.

  3. #3
    Ah, Mrs. Peel! mike_w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hertfordshire, England
    Posts
    3,326
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    9 times in 7 posts
    San Diego is essentially Venice with more cache - San Diego has 1MB, while Venice has 512KB.
    "Well, there was your Uncle Tiberius who died wrapped in cabbage leaves but we assumed that was a freak accident."

  4. #4
    Almost in control. autopilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Region 2
    Posts
    4,071
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    12 times in 11 posts
    Just as i thought, cheers. I think the CustomPC article may have been writen a while back and was out of date by the time it was published, in typical magazine style.

  5. #5
    Banned Smokey21's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Stafford, Midlands
    Posts
    1,752
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    At the same speeds, the San Diego is faster, but similar priced chips between the to, are not similar speeds.

    The 3800+ Venice is faster than a 3700SD.

  6. #6
    Treasure Hunter extraordinaire herulach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked
    172 times in 159 posts
    • herulach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 MPower
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB WD Blue + 250GB 840 EVo
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 2* Palit GTX 970 Jetstream
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 850W
      • Case:
      • CM HAF Stacker 935, 2*360 Rad WC Loop w/EK blocks.
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1
      • Monitor(s):
      • Crossover 290HD & LG L1980Q
      • Internet:
      • 120mb Virgin Media
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey21
    At the same speeds, the San Diego is faster, but similar priced chips between the to, are not similar speeds.

    The 3800+ Venice is faster than a 3700SD.
    BUt not by a lot, and cache will help you out a lot more once you overclock it as in theory you should be able to get both up to around the same speed.

  7. #7
    Almost in control. autopilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Region 2
    Posts
    4,071
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    12 times in 11 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey21
    At the same speeds, the San Diego is faster, but similar priced chips between the to, are not similar speeds.

    The 3800+ Venice is faster than a 3700SD.
    How much faster? Significant? That was the exact choice i was try to decide between.

  8. #8
    Civilian Nick F's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,668
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked
    18 times in 10 posts
    • Nick F's system
      • CPU:
      • 2.4Ghz C2D
      • Memory:
      • 4GB
      • Storage:
      • 320Gb internal / 750Gb external
      • Case:
      • Apple iMac
      • Operating System:
      • Mac OSx
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24inch
      • Internet:
      • 8mb BE connection
    Glad this post is here I was just about to ask the same question

  9. #9
    king of breakfast food
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    307
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    here is how i see it when selecting a chip

    cache cannot be added once you've bought it, but clock speed can as you can OC

    as both chips will clock simulary it would be a good idea to go with the extra cache and slightly cheaper price and just OC

    tho tbh i dont think cache helps that much, so if you dont OC get the 3800

    for example my 3000 venice is at 2.85ghz and is by no means a slouch compared to 1mb cache diego's

  10. #10
    Treasure Hunter extraordinaire herulach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked
    172 times in 159 posts
    • herulach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 MPower
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB WD Blue + 250GB 840 EVo
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 2* Palit GTX 970 Jetstream
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 850W
      • Case:
      • CM HAF Stacker 935, 2*360 Rad WC Loop w/EK blocks.
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1
      • Monitor(s):
      • Crossover 290HD & LG L1980Q
      • Internet:
      • 120mb Virgin Media
    Quote Originally Posted by BAcon
    here is how i see it when selecting a chip

    cache cannot be added once you've bought it, but clock speed can as you can OC

    as both chips will clock simulary it would be a good idea to go with the extra cache and slightly cheaper price and just OC

    tho tbh i dont think cache helps that much, so if you dont OC get the 3800

    for example my 3000 venice is at 2.85ghz and is by no means a slouch compared to 1mb cache diego's
    It depends how you bench things, cache doesnt have much of an effect in games, but in things where the entire app will fit in 1 meg, (office basically) then its much much faster. That said due to the lower latency and high speed of the HT it doesnt matter so much on amd as Intel, but id still say go with the san diego. Just because the 3800 is the fastest venice, so chances of getting a good clocking chip arent as high.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,476
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    228 times in 193 posts
    Can the additional cache on the SG be detrimental to OCing in any way?
    Last edited by TooNice; 27-07-2005 at 10:07 PM.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    the 3700+ san diego's are cheaper and better than the venice 3800+'s in my veiw, they are much easier to clock too in the sense that they are already 200mhz below the 3800+ clock speed most of the san diegos can reach 2.6 ghz without any problems at all 2.7 and 2.8 can usually be achived to but this depends on the cooling.. and the money you save can go towards better air cooling e.g xp120 or go towards some nice watercooling

  13. #13
    Almost in control. autopilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Region 2
    Posts
    4,071
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    12 times in 11 posts
    3700SD it is then

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. venice or san diego
    By Merlin4458 in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 22-06-2005, 03:17 AM
  2. AMD San diego Might be a problem
    By darrensen in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 10-05-2005, 01:08 AM
  3. Winchester vs Venice vs San Diego
    By Tobeman in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-05-2005, 06:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •