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

3700+ or 3800+

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

orionzbelt1

Member
Joined
May 28, 2004
Location
ESSEX UK
Im just about to upgrade my system buy getting a AMD 64 and have gone for a MSI KV8 Neo 2 because i got the motherboard very cheap from a friend and i have a x800 i recently purchased on AGP and would loose to much cash by going for PCIE and the wouldnt be much performce increase.

I have decieded to get a 3800+ Venice Core but i have been looking around and found that the 3700+ San Diego Core has 1Meg of L2 cache and the 3800+ only has 512k but the 3800 is 200mhz faster.

Can anyone help me make a disison on this
 
huey said:
1meg of l2>200mhz

wrong.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2429&p=8
Notice a 3800+ with 512k and 4000+ with 1mb are within .01 to .03 of each other on all the Workstation benchmarks, but the 4000+ and FX-55, same cache, only difference is 200mhz more, makes .75 to almost a full point difference.

Even when it comes to gaming, for some games, its about same difference in FPS between 512kb Cache difference, and 200mhz difference, and in other games, the 200mhz gives a much bigger boost. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2429&p=6

so enough with the rhetoric and bring on some FACTS, if you still insist 512k cache makes that much of a difference.

I'd go with a 3800+ Venice anyday over the 3700+ SD.
 
No point in getting the Venice over the Diego, seeing as the two will end up at equal speeds anyways. The cache adds a responsiveness in daily usage which synthetic benchmarks cannot pick up. There's no hard proof of this, but nearly everyone that's switched from 512k to 1024k would agree.
 
Just thought i would mention i wont be Ocing the chip at all and will be partnering it with some OCZ 2-2-25 memory
 
Last edited:
Back