• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

What core is better

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Well since very few people have either core, its kinda hard to say now. Maybe ask in about a week or two when most of the hardcore OC'rs get them and tweek them to the max.
 
The two S939 Revision 'E' cores appear to be overclocking roughly the same. The two are also identical in every respect, except for the cache size.

The San Diegos should theoretically overclock a little bit better on average then the Venices, when the two cores are compared across a very large number of examples, because of speed binning.

As to which core is better, the San Diego wins hands down, because it has a 1 Meg L2 cache, vs. the Venice's 512 Kb L2 cache.

If you can afford it over a 3500+ Venice, the 3700+ San Diego is a much better performance choice.
 
felinusz said:
The two S939 Revision 'E' cores appear to be overclocking roughly the same. The two are also identical in every respect, except for the cache size.

The San Diegos should theoretically overclock a little bit better on average then the Venices, when the two cores are compared across a very large number of examples, because of speed binning.

As to which core is better, the San Diego wins hands down, because it has a 1 Meg L2 cache, vs. the Venice's 512 Kb L2 cache.

If you can afford it over a 3500+ Venice, the 3700+ San Diego is a much better performance choice.


You can't really say the san diego will win 'hands down'. There is no real proof yet saying that it will or won't. Remember when the Prescotts first came out? They were suppose to be alot better then the Northwoods they replaced. The northwoods had 512k of L2 cache while the prescotts had 1mb L2. Well the Northwoods were overall a better cpu, and ran a heck of alot cooler to boot. The prescotts didn't really start pulling ahead until they hit 4ghz +, but in the 3ghz range they were on par or below the Northwood in alot of benches.

I know AMD and Intel are alot differant, but speculating that the San Diego will be 'hands down' better is something that shouldn't be said until there has been extensive testing of the two in identical systems.
 
because of the early results I believe they will end up being about the same in overclockability.... the only real difference will be the extra cache on the San Diego for good or for bad.
 
I can't see how anyone can believe the San Diego may not be superior to the Venice. Of course it will be. The only question is how much better and will it be worth the extra cost. Time will tell.
 
stang8118

You can't really say the san diego will win 'hands down'. There is no real proof yet saying that it will or won't. Remember when the Prescotts first came out? They were suppose to be alot better then the Northwoods they replaced. The northwoods had 512k of L2 cache while the prescotts had 1mb L2. Well the Northwoods were overall a better cpu, and ran a heck of alot cooler to boot. The prescotts didn't really start pulling ahead until they hit 4ghz +, but in the 3ghz range they were on par or below the Northwood in alot of benches.

I know AMD and Intel are alot differant, but speculating that the San Diego will be 'hands down' better is something that shouldn't be said until there has been extensive testing of the two in identical systems.


The two cores are identical, except for the cache size. We already know that the extra cache won't be holding back overclockability, look at the FX-55 processors.

I'm not speculating about performance, the San Diego is the better processor of the two hands down, when at the same clock speed, because of the larger cache.

You're right, it is too early to declare which core will be the better overclocker. But I didn't say anything definitive about that, did I?


felinusz

The San Diegos should theoretically overclock a little bit better on average then the Venices, when the two cores are compared across a very large number of examples, because of speed binning.
 
stang8118 said:
You can't really say the san diego will win 'hands down'. There is no real proof yet saying that it will or won't. Remember when the Prescotts first came out? They were suppose to be alot better then the Northwoods they replaced. The northwoods had 512k of L2 cache while the prescotts had 1mb L2. Well the Northwoods were overall a better cpu, and ran a heck of alot cooler to boot. The prescotts didn't really start pulling ahead until they hit 4ghz +, but in the 3ghz range they were on par or below the Northwood in alot of benches.

I know AMD and Intel are alot differant, but speculating that the San Diego will be 'hands down' better is something that shouldn't be said until there has been extensive testing of the two in identical systems.
There were significant architectural differences between the northwood and the prescott. This is not the case with venice and sandiego. They are more like t-breds and bartons, the only difference is cache size. They have the same pipelines (prescott had a much longer pipeline than northwood) and are built using the same process. Cache latencies should be the same as well (I believe).

The extra cache on the prescott did not hurt performance. It probably would have been a worse performer if it had less cache.
 
Back