• 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.

AMD A64 S939 3700 vs 3800 vs 4000

devilman_079

devilman_079

devilman_079

Associate
Joined
8 Mar 2005
Posts
117
I am looking to upgrade my A64 3000 S939 for a faster CPU. My motherboard (MSI Neo Plat 2) with a flash upgrade will support latest S939 chips no problem. A couple of questions:

1) Which is best for performance 3800 or 4000. I know there is a difference of cache 512 vs 1024 but both are clocked at the same frequency so wondered whats the better chip to go for? Does the 3800 overclock better or anything?

2) Is the 3700 chip worth getting instead? I say this as I have seen the price on OcUK fluctuate loads. I have seen it for 14.99 last week and now its 37.99 (not inc VAT). I should have been quicker and got it when it was 14.99 as that would have been really good value for money :confused:

3) My feeling is the dual chips such as 4200 are not worth the money and would be better put that cash to a new build? Agree? Disagree?

Thanks D.
 
Jaffa_Cake said:
the 939 3200+ Venice's are possibly the best AMD oc'ers in my opinion :)
Click to expand...
Hmm I didn't have chance to play with my 3000+ much yet, clocked it up to 2400MHz at stock vCore (1.35v BIOS). Just swapped it out for a Venice 3800+ which is now clocked at 2700MHz and 10 hours into a Prime session, needed more vCore for that though (1.45v) but temps are great, like 41°C Full load. Next up is a Venice 3200+ followed by an Opteron 146, lol I bought far to many Athlon 64s, can't believe I missed the Sandiegos selling for £15.oo :eek:
 
The 3700+'s were steals. I bought two of these about two weeks ago. I tested one and it hit 2.8GHz Blend Stable for hours with a load temperature of around 43*c (yes, core temps). They're both sold now to clear up funds but they were just mini overclocking projects.

You'll find that Venice Overclocks (3000,3200,3500,3800) are a bit more variable that San Diego's like the 3700 and 4000. Pretty much every SanDiego has hit 2.6GHz with a small voltage increase and the last of the Sandy's coming out of AMD were insane clockers. People with late KAB2E's and KAB3E's hitting well over 3.0GHz stock volts!

Mul
 
Hi, my Sandy 4000 (Bought from OcUK last summer) is currently running at 3.0Ghz rock solid stable on an ASROCK mobo. I had problems to start with but found it was down to the PSU, now replaced with a Corsair 620W.

Hope this helps,

Pete.
 
If you can get the 3700 cheap then go for it, and hold out a bit longer. The s939 x2's are a waste of money, and I wouldnt go higher than the 3700 either. Overall I think the 3700 SD is the best S939 for gaming and a bit of OCing.
 
My 3700+ managed to hit 2.6Ghz, but couldnt take it any further due to the max FSB allowed with the motherboard. The temps were pretty low too, cant say I saw it hit 40c unless it was boiling outside. Though the bad thing was, I got it for £130 and then a month later, it was down to like £60-70. :mad:
 
Mines the same, clocks to 2.6 stable @ 1.4v, however I can't clock it any higher because of the voltage limitation on my MB. :(

Great chip anyway.
 
Get the 4000+ while you can, amazing chips for the money! They all seem to hit 3ghz to problems. Run really cool - great gaming performance. I have gone dual core and its faster but not hugely different in real terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom