3200+ vs 3500+ vs 3700+

D

DuffMan72

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
246
Right now, these are the current processors I want to get for my new computer.

Prices: (in CDN)
3200+: 240-250
3500+: 290-300
3700+: 350-360

I'm wondering what advantages the 3500 has over the 3200, and what advantages the 3700 has over the 3500, and if they are both worth the price over the 3200? I do not plan on going dual core for the next 2+ years. I will not be overclocking either, and I also want to save as much money as possible, but I wouldn't mind spending the extra cash if it's REALLY worth it.

Excuse my crappy grammar, I'm tired :p
 
I know you said you were not going to go dual core for two years, but if you are considering the 3700+ why not consider the X2 3800+? Make the move now its worth it and will be much more noticable than going from 3200, 3500, or 3700. If you don't plan on buy another processor in the next two years you should drop a few more dollars on the X2 3800 now you won't regret it.
 
Check out the stickies to see how well those CPUs can overclock. I think the 3200+ has the most headroom. So if I were you, I'd save a few bucks, get the 3200+ now, and then get a nice x2 in a couple years, such as 5000+ or whatever it will be called. In 2 years, I wouldn't be surprised if each core did 3-3.2 GHz (I'm not so optimistic about Moore's Law anymore), had a couple MB cache on each core and came in at < $300.
 
Between the 3200 and 3500, the difference is 200mhz. In my opinion the money is not worth the performance gain. But I also overclock, so its a no brainer for me. You could even buy a 3000+ and run it at 3500+ speeds with almost no effort (assuming your motherboard is up to the task, if not it may be more complicated). So to answer your question there, its a marginal performance gain.

As far as the San Diego 3700+ goes, it has a 200mhz gain on the 3200+ as well as 1 MB of cache (as opposed to 512k). The benefit there is slightly increased, but I agree with snoops in that if you will pay for the 3700, you may want to look into the X2 3800+.

If it were me, and I didn't want to spend 3700+ prices, I'd get a 3000+ or 3200+ and work on a suitable overclock.

beowulf7 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if each core did 3-3.2 GHz (I'm not so optimistic about Moore's Law anymore), had a couple MB cache on each core and came in at < $300.
Click to expand...
Moore's Law makes reference to the number of transistors on a CPU, not the clock speed. So the fact that you are estimating that the cache will at least double in a couple years actually means you're right on track with Moore's Law.
 
You can pick up a 3700+ for $330 CDN (www.pccanada.com) and they overclock like mad. Most chips will do upwards of 2.8ghz on air or more. I've seen a few 3ghz runs on air with XP120's and decent fans. Go with the 3700+.
 
3200+ and 3500+ are now in Venice core. It'a good CPU with 512 KB L2.

Though on other hand 3700+ is cheeper then Venice 3800+ but in San Diego core has 1MB cache and it's same production CPU as a 4000+ 4200+.
3800+ has 200 MHz faster clock but 512 KB cache.

Here in Europe 3800+ Venice costs 65$ more then 3700+ San Diego.
Also 3800+ X2 costs same as 3800+ Venice.

Even non OC-ed 3700+ San Diego 939 CPU is very fast. OC-ed even a bit it's fast as some FX processors.

From Venice CPU's 3000+ is bigest bang for a buck if You want to OC. Otherwise 3500+ is reasonable CPU. It's strong enouigh to power strongest grafic card and it doesn't cost too much.


On other hand if You are multi thread/ multitasking person go with a 3800+ X2 CPU. Allthough slower for a single thread actions it will simply be transparent for multitasking usage.





MD
 
Everything overclocks like mad nowadays. Every Venice (at least 90% of them) easily hits 2.7-2.8 (however, they all do) with decent cooling. Because they all OC to about the same, I'd get a 3200+.

Can you get shipping from www.eWiz.com? If it isn't too much (*crosses fingers* we can always hope), then you can get a 3000+ Venice E6 (improved venice, original is E3. Better OCs) for US$116.39 + shipping. Just in case:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=A64-3000BW
 
Just seen 3700+ San Diego second hand on local forum for good price. Dude have had it at 2,9 aircooled!? Even with stock cooler 2700MHz?


MD
 
Thanks a lot guys, you've all been very helpful so far. :)

Now I'm stuck between the 3200+ and the 3500+. I do not want to get dual core yet because it is still in its first generation, so I will be patient enough to wait. Since I won't be purchasing any other heatsinks/fans for my CPU, I am wondering with of the two processors can overclock better. Also, are there any benchmarks regarding the Venice/San Diego chips in gaming and rendering 3D animation?

I've also read about revisions within the core, such as BP/BW. How could I know whether the CPU uses the newer BW revision over the BP revision?
 
3700+ is still viable because 1mb cache makes it pretty nice in games over the 512kb x2's. FX style baby! Different strokes for different folks. The 3800+ X2 is sizably more money as well even though the PR is close. I don't know why people never ask what you do with it before they just tell you to get an x2. I'll get an X2 when the game support comes around and the mb cache ones are affordable. Game on a 1mb chip, you won't go back. Sometimes I feel it's more intangible. Ram capacity doesn't show up in benches. You can toss my unscientific observation though if you like.

Do you really care what we think though? The OC advice was all good with no asterisks. Sorry guys, if you say encode on a backup comp, dual core is not worth +$100 -512kb cache. I won't harp on the MHz difference, amd chips are OC'ing good (3700+'s like bats out of hell). Leading to next point. The Between the 3500+ and the 3200+... well that's an easy choice if you want to save.

3200+ for the money (don't wanna go as low as 9 multi but 3000+ aren't bad either)
3700+ higher end gamer, still won't break the bank, I paid 260 at monarch
X2 3800+ if you actually WILL use it. It is more money AND both OC'd won't game as well as an SD. Second guessed myself, but it had no place in my upgrade when I set out to basically make the best damn BF2/gamer rig I could. 1 meg cache for the win!
 
The 3700+ SD is $100 more but provides 512K more cache and 400 MHz (22%) more core speed by default.

1. OC'ig is a gamble.
2. Dividers do not penalize "real" A64 performance

My oppinion is to buy the 3700+ SD. At least from day '1' you will be satisfied with the performance and can push from there. Hoping for a 50% OC is a pipe dream for most people unless the other hardware can support it well. I've always OC'd something weak in the hopes of making in better to save $$$. And every time I do it I get burned.
 
the 3700+ is Ridiculous.....I have it at 2.81ghz on stock cooling and its 100% stable and passes all benchmarks. It has a Vcore of 1.61 and max load temps of 48-49C. IMHO this is incredible for a processor on stock cooling. Not to mention it saved me about $800 dollars on an FX57.
 
RawsonDR said:
...

Moore's Law makes reference to the number of transistors on a CPU, not the clock speed. So the fact that you are estimating that the cache will at least double in a couple years actually means you're right on track with Moore's Law.
Click to expand...

That is true that Moore's Law was really in reference to the doubling of transistors in a given area every 18-24 months. But that pretty much directly correlated to computing performance (i.e. speed). I think Moore's Law will be changed from 18-24 months too 30-36 months as far as the doubling period goes. Well, when quantum computing becomes a reality, who knows then.

By my saying that I predict cache to be doubled (i.e. 1 MB/core to 2 MB/core) doesn't necessarily refer to just the transistor count since that's only a small portion of that count.
 
Kdog....do you remember what stepping and week your 3700+ was. I have a 3700+ (CABGE 0517UPBW) that does 2800mhz on stock cooling as well. I haven't tried to push it any further yet.
 
beowulf7 said:
That is true that Moore's Law was really in reference to the doubling of transistors in a given area every 18-24 months. But that pretty much directly correlated to computing performance (i.e. speed). I think Moore's Law will be changed from 18-24 months too 30-36 months as far as the doubling period goes. Well, when quantum computing becomes a reality, who knows then.

By my saying that I predict cache to be doubled (i.e. 1 MB/core to 2 MB/core) doesn't necessarily refer to just the transistor count since that's only a small portion of that count.
Click to expand...

2.4 P4's have been around since 2002. No doubt about it, it's slowing down. My 1900+ was an eternity ago. People go all crazy doing whatever they want with this so called rule to make it seem more feasible. It's nice how somewhat true it is. I dunno, maybe I get the wrong impression that people seem to hold this up to a prophet like level. I meant performance, oh look dual core. People have bastardized it. Probably in a few years people will stop talking about it AS much. Or it's going to get very ugly, the rationalizations.
 
Seems like the 3700+ is a great deal... where do you guys think the best price for one of these is?
 
Russ said:
Everything overclocks like mad nowadays. Every Venice (at least 90% of them) easily hits 2.7-2.8 (however, they all do) with decent cooling. Because they all OC to about the same, I'd get a 3200+.

Can you get shipping from www.eWiz.com? If it isn't too much (*crosses fingers* we can always hope), then you can get a 3000+ Venice E6 (improved venice, original is E3. Better OCs) for US$116.39 + shipping. Just in case:
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=A64-3000BW
Click to expand...

Well people are saying that E6 overclocks much worse in most cases than E3.
 
DuffMan72 said:
I'm wondering what advantages the 3500 has over the 3200, and what advantages the 3700 has over the 3500, and if they are both worth the price over the 3200?
Click to expand...
because i don't see a clear answer

3200+ = 2.0ghz, 512kb cache
3500+ = 2.2ghz, 512kb cache
3700+ = 2.2ghz, 1mb cache

if you're not overclocking, i would adivse you go with a 3400+ newcastle, 2.4ghz, 512kb cache. definitly the best deal of all the a64's imo.



fscussel said:
Well people are saying that E6 overclocks much worse in most cases than E3.
Click to expand...
and by theory, it should. E6 venice = dejected toledo
 
if toledo is dual core as I remember than its impossible to 3000+ E6 is rejected toledo because the E6 die size is the same as the 3000+ E3
 
fscussel said:
if toledo is dual core as I remember than its impossible to 3000+ E6 is rejected toledo because the E6 die size is the same as the 3000+ E3
Click to expand...
i would like proof. E6 would signify a revE core with 2048kb cache on die. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top