Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 30

Thread: Athlon A64 Venice vs. San Diego

  1. #1
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    34
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Athlon A64 Venice vs. San Diego

    I was quite close to buying the Venice 3500+ CPU some days ago until i asked about this in this forum and was told I should get the San Diego cpu instead (had more cache, and just better). I been looking a bit more into it, and now i feel a bit torn between the 2! Could someone please give me some advantages/disadvantages between the 2.

    Im planning to overclock in the future, and was wondering if this would be better on the San Diego? Also what is the advantage with 1mb cache, compared to the amount on the Venice.

    Hope to get some response!

    (Here is the links of the 2 CPU's)

    AMD Venice 3500+ , Scan

    AMD San Diego 3700+, Scan
    Last edited by madd_garde; 05-09-2005 at 03:23 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Probably Poole
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    5 times in 5 posts
    • Hottentot's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5Q Pro
      • CPU:
      • Q9550 at 3.8 GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB
      • Storage:
      • SSD + HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI 7950
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 650TX
      • Case:
      • CM HAF 932 (watercooled)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 (x64)
      • Monitor(s):
      • NEC 2690WUXi
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 10Mb
    Both CPUs overclock to about the same speeds 2.6-2.8 Ghz (luck of the draw). The extra cache on the 3700 will give a very small performance boost (<5%) in most applications. Is it worth the extra money?, only you can decide.

  3. #3
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    34
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Yea, and thats my dilemma...is it worth the money

    Quote Originally Posted by Hottentot
    ...Is it worth the extra money?, only you can decide.

  4. #4
    mutantbass head Lee H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    M28, Manchester
    Posts
    14,204
    Thanks
    337
    Thanked
    671 times in 580 posts
    • Lee H's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z370 Carbon Gaming
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 8700K Unlocked CPU
      • Memory:
      • 16 GB Corsair Vengeance 3200 LPX
      • Storage:
      • 250GB 960 EVO + a few more drives
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 6GB Palit GTX 1060 Dual
      • PSU:
      • Antec Truepower 750W Modular Blue
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T White Edition
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 PRO
      • Monitor(s):
      • 27" Asus MX279H & 24" Acer 3D GD245HQ + the 3D glasses
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media
    The San Diego is better suited to power hungry apps like video, audio etc as well as giving a bit more oomph in gaming. The extra cache according to a post on the AMD forum is the equivalent of an extra 200 Mhz hence it having the 3700+ rating.

  5. #5
    Senior Member just_laze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    581
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • just_laze's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R v1.0
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core 2 Duo E5200
      • Memory:
      • 4 x Corsair 1GB 6400C4 800MHz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB x2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia 9600GT 512MB
      • PSU:
      • Tagan T430-U15 430W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master ATC-201B SXT
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG L227WT
      • Internet:
      • 8Mbit
    I'd go with the venice, just evaluating both CPU's in my head it seems the best value.
    You're invited to follow me on Twitter

  6. #6
    not posting kempez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    3,204
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Well if your going with value: AMD 3200+ Venice: overclocks to 2.7-8GHz

    I find my Venice (2.8GHz 1:1) lacks the speed in general windows and encoding...stuff like that. I have used a 4000+ Diego at the same speed and its a bit zipper in those aspects. Games doesn't make much of difference.

    So its up to you: what do you do?
    Check my project <<| Black3D |>>
    Quote Originally Posted by hexah
    Games are developed by teams of talented people and sometimes electronic arts

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Who Cares!
    Posts
    4,092
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    61 times in 52 posts
    Venice from what i have read in different forums.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Dark Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    999
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    I'd say the extra cache helps gaming when the cpu is working pretty intensively and so helps smooth out the bits when the fps drop right down. Its quite hard to show that in a synthetic benchmark like superpi or 3dmark unfortunately.

  9. #9
    Zad
    Zad is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wakefield, UK
    Posts
    124
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    AMD 64 CPUs aren't that fussy about cache, certainly not to the extent that Intel chips are. The on-chip memory controller keeps memory latency very low, delivering lots of bandwidth. If you doubt this, have a look at some "fast" PC4000 memory reviews, it has virtually no benefit. If the cache<->memory bandwidth were a bottleneck it would show a huge improvement.

    I would go for the Venice 3500+ for a desktop system, only preferring a 3700+ if it were a server with all sorts of services running (which would benefit from a dual core anyway).

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Who Cares!
    Posts
    4,092
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    61 times in 52 posts
    What about the Winchester 3500? Is that a better bet than the newer Venice?

  11. #11
    Wannabe Title Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    727
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked
    7 times in 7 posts
    Venice over Winchester, but - personally - the San Diego is so little more money it si likely the best value....
    Main: i5 2500K, AsRock Extreme4 Z68, 8GB Vengeance, Enermax Infiniti, 5850 1GB
    Toys: Cowon J3 32GB, DIR-655, PS3 Slim, HTC Desire, HDC-SD1, Slingbox, Synology DS109j, Asus Transformer + dock

  12. #12
    not posting kempez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    3,204
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Koolpc
    What about the Winchester 3500? Is that a better bet than the newer Venice?
    The Venice (and SD) core is a newer revision with lower power comsumption, better memory controller and some pretty cool other features: get a Venice or San Diego
    Check my project <<| Black3D |>>
    Quote Originally Posted by hexah
    Games are developed by teams of talented people and sometimes electronic arts

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    64
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I'd get the Venice but that's cos I'm cheap! I've heard that San Diegos can run pretty hot.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Who Cares!
    Posts
    4,092
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    61 times in 52 posts
    Cheers Kempez815

  15. #15
    not posting kempez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Posts
    3,204
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by crepness
    I'd get the Venice but that's cos I'm cheap! I've heard that San Diegos can run pretty hot.
    Where have you heard that?
    Check my project <<| Black3D |>>
    Quote Originally Posted by hexah
    Games are developed by teams of talented people and sometimes electronic arts

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    64
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I've read it on some forums. Maybe I phrased it wrong. I meant that they may run hotter than the Venice cores.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Athlon 64: 3700 San Diego vs 3800 Venice
    By Craig in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-09-2005, 08:59 AM
  2. Venice VS San Diego
    By autopilot in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28-07-2005, 12:28 PM
  3. AMD Athlon 64 3700+ S939 OEM San Diego
    By redlight in forum Retail Therapy and Bargains
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 25-07-2005, 03:37 PM
  4. venice or san diego
    By Merlin4458 in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 22-06-2005, 03:17 AM
  5. 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
  •