- Joined
- Jan 20, 2002
- Location
- Folding In Minnesota
I am eaither going to be getting a 3700+ or a 3500+. What core is better for ocing? Venice or San Diego?
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
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.
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.
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.
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).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.