Processors 8 replies

Please wait...

-King-

People say I post too much

50 XP

11th June 2005

0 Uploads

2,370 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Some of you may remember I did thread other day about wheter dual or single core. I took most of you guys adivce and decided gonna go with a normal AMD, Except I'm not sure which. I've 3 processors in mind, mainly 2, just a extra 4000+ incase that is worth the extra big leap in money. Theese are the processors. AMD Athlon 64 3700 San Deigo core 1MB - 170 pounds http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?AMD-64937S AMD Athlon 64 3800 Venice core 512k - 195 pounds http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?AMD-64938V The 3800 is 15 odd more, for a extra .1Ghz, but it has a cache of 512k while the 3700 has a 1MB cache, what difference does cache make? and which is better, I'd assume the 3800 as it cost more but the cache size confuses me. I'd also be prepared to dish out extra money for this if there is a big difference between it and the 3700 and 800. AMD Athlon 64 4000 San Deigo core 1MB - 240 pounds. http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?AMD-64937S Basicly could someone tell me what core is better, San Deigo or Venice, and if San Deigo, Is the 4000 worth the extra money instead of a 3700?

Thanks for time and replies much appreciated.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

3700+.




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Go with the 3700+, its the exact same CPU as the 4000+, just clocked 200Mhz slower. which 200Mhz will only show during benchmarks, during actual system use or gaming you will never even notice a difference.

The 3800+ i think would be a waste of money at that price point, your only getting half the L2 cache of the 3700+ while only gaining 200Mhz. I would say getting a extra 512k of cache would help performance better than a extra 200Mhz will. Plus with the 3700+ with some overclocking you can be running at FX55-57 speeds.

The San Diego core is better than venice, but the 4000+ is not worth that much more over the 3700+ in my opinion. just bump the 3700+ up by 200Mhz and you will have your 4000+ for alot less.

Go with the 3700+, you will love it.




rob.

I am the Walrus

50 XP

24th October 2004

0 Uploads

5,580 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

3700+ San Diego....Full Stop.

You can't go wrong with the performance/price ratio. It's IMPOSSIBLE! ;)

It is a great cpu, i own one myself and it kicks arse. :nodding:




-King-

People say I post too much

50 XP

11th June 2005

0 Uploads

2,370 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

Ok, that sounds great guys, thanks for advice, one last thing, how much difference do you think this will make to my comp when I'm upgrading from a AMD Athlon 64 3000?




Dragokatzov

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

24th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,363 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

3700+, you can over clock it to 4000+ speeds and save you some money




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago
Tumerok89 how much difference do you think this will make to my comp when I'm upgrading from a AMD Athlon 64 3000?

Depends what your doing, you should see a decent increase in gaming performance though.




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

Yep. 3700+ all the way. I own one, and the performance is excellent. Coupled with 1gb of Corsair XMS TwinX, it's a joy to behold. You'll definately see a large bump in speed upgrading from that 3000+.




rob.

I am the Walrus

50 XP

24th October 2004

0 Uploads

5,580 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago
Ok, that sounds great guys, thanks for advice, one last thing, how much difference do you think this will make to my comp when I'm upgrading from a AMD Athlon 64 3000?

It depends on the rest of your specs..But it should be quite noticable.