• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3700 SD vs. 3800 Venice (again)

Arterion

Arterion

Arterion

Associate
Joined
14 Jan 2004
Posts
870
Location
Reading, UK
There seems to have been a lot of debate as to which is the better CPU; the San Diego 3700+ or Venice 3800+. I searched lots of threads but could find none which covered all the following bases...

Firstly, assume I can't be bothered with overclocking. Secondly, assume that I don't do much multitasking save for a concurrence of Winamp, MSN and perhaps Word. Thirdly, this PC wants to be able to do some pretty decent gaming (will be packing an X1800XT as well).

Seems to be a big price difference between the two- but this isnt much of an issue (and no i'm not really interested at an X2 at this point)

Which would I be better off with guys?
 
3700+ hands down, no question, no comparison, no brainer!!!!!! :D

Basically at stock, both will perform roughly the same as the extra cache is said to be equivalent to a 200Mhz increase (or so I've heard).

And look at the price of the 3800 Venice. For that much you can get the X2 3800+ (dual core).
 
Yeah the L2 cache although its twice as big you'd expect a massive performance boost - but it amounts to around 2-5% at the most I've been told.
Still get the San diego i'd say.
 
I cant see why people are saying that the 3700 is better if you're not going to be overclocking :confused:

The 3800 outperforms it on pretty much every benchmark ive seen, and the extra cache is more like 100-150Mhz increase in terms of performance.

Obviously if you're going to be overclocking then go for the 3700.. but at stock the 3800 is the faster chip.
 
naffa said:
I cant see why people are saying that the 3700 is better if you're not going to be overclocking :confused:

The 3800 outperforms it on pretty much every benchmark ive seen, and the extra cache is more like 100-150Mhz increase in terms of performance.

Obviously if you're going to be overclocking then go for the 3700.. but at stock the 3800 is the faster chip.
Click to expand...

But the price doesn't do any justice to what you've just said.



AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego Retail (CP-121-AM)
£150.34 inc VAT

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice Retail (CP-116-AM)
£205.57 inc VAT

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ Retail (CP-134-AM)
£211.44 inc VAT



IMO it's either the 3700+ or dual core.
 
Although he can't be bothered overclocking, with a san diego 3700 even someone whom has never done it before could get a 200MHz increase, he saves £50 and gets a better chip out of it! It wouldn't take long to get a 200MHz increase!
 
Uhh it is better by a longshot, not to mention the fact the 3700 has 1MB Cache.
The clocking factor is there is you want it or not so its just a bonus.
The price is very nice aswell, there is nothing bad about this chip frankly.
I would never buy a single core 3800 over a 3700 even if I had more money then sense, which fortunately I do not. :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom