San Diego or Venice?

Got a shopping cart of parts that you want opinions on? Get advice from members on your planned or existing system (or upgrade).

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
mattek
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Sweden

San Diego or Venice?

Post by mattek » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:47 pm

I've ordered a system recently. I went with the +3700 San Diego core. But reading through the forums I got confused, which is the fastest/most recent core from AMD Venice or San Diego? Would the +3800 Venice be a better choice for a gaming rig?

What are the diffrences between the two cores?

I'd appreciate any help on these questions.
/mattek

vertigo
Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Location: UK

Post by vertigo » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:56 pm

They are just as recent as each other, the only difference is the San Diego has 1MB L2 cache, the Venice has 512kB.

More cache is usually better, but 512kB is still plenty, it's usually worthwhile to save the extra money and buy the cheaper one.

mattek
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Sweden

Ok!

Post by mattek » Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:58 am

Thanks! The thing is that the company i placed my order with currently is out of stock on all AMD processors. So if the +3800/+4000 pops up first I might switch and get my system faster.

--- Only of interest to Swedes ---
By the way, I placed my order with www.datorbutiken.com (swedish) and this is my third system I order from them, they do not seem to keep a large stock on anything really. Other swedish online retailers have 100+ units of all AMD processors. (www.komplett.se for example).

This is the last time I order anything from www.datorbutiken.com. From now on I'm building my systems on my own with components from komplett.se.
--- End of swede rant ---

mattek
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Sweden

Post by mattek » Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:23 am

Just saw this:
http://techreport.com/cpu/

Updated and helpful.

ryboto
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: New Hampshire, US
Contact:

Post by ryboto » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:11 am

mattek wrote:Just saw this:
http://techreport.com/cpu/

Updated and helpful.
that list is incorrect, it lists the A64 3700 as a 939 Clawhammer core, operating at 2200mhz....the clawhammer version of the 3700 was a 754 pin chipm and was clocked at 2400mhz...

mattek
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Sweden

Post by mattek » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:17 am

Yeah. I saw that aswell. Pretty big mistake if you ask me. Misinformation like that can really mess things up. I've emailed them, hopefully they will correct it.

Post Reply