3700+

In games yes but it's not a big upgrade especially in anything else. They certainly OC like beasts though. :D If you wanted something new, or you participate in OC'ing and the P4 is not that good, then OK. Stock to stock... not worth it unless you are really bored.

That said I went from a 3200+ to a 3700+ and I OC, so I do get bored. But that's for the love of OC'ing. (and the small price to just flip it. I should get good money for a 2.7GHz venice).
 
I'm bored and the P4 doesn't overclock and I really want an AMD.Is an overclocked 3700+ Sandy worth the price over an overclocked 3200+ Venice.
 
I got my sandy for 269. It was worth it for me. The sandy runs 2.7 at pretty low volts, the same I was running my venice on for 2.6 (1.53v). Thats not going to happen to everyone but it is a higher bin in MHz as well. I'm guessing I can get that 100 or so boost with more v just like how I get my venice higher. Sell the venice and I'm clear and happy.

If you do nothing but game on the comp as primary concern, I really like these as gamers. The 3800+ X2's price difference is more than the PR would indicate and the cache is nice here. Doesn't seem like you'll be keeping it long enough that multi-threaded games gains will outpace the extra cache. I don't know why i bring up x2's other than I'm sure a lot think about it when they go to buy a new AMD chip. I'll save the $140 and gain the extra cahe, the higher MHz bin with less watts (San Diego's are blasting lately). Cheaper X2 had no place say when i set out to build the best BF2 rig I could for the my budget.
 
Not everyone pushes the lowest bins. Price/performance a 3000+ is definitely best.
 
It seems to me that the best deals are the 3000/3200+ (assuming you overclock).
The next step would be the 3700+ (skip 3500+ unless you find a good deal).

Also to note is that the earlier weeks seemed to overclock better, but a FEW people have been getting lucky with the newer e6 venice chips...the others seemed to get lemons? 2.5Ghz is pretty much guaranteed though
 
My 3700+ Sandy does 2.8ghz on stock voltage on the stock cooler. Plus it has the 1mb cache. It screams in all apps! I wouldn't even replace it for a X3800x2 processor. :)
 
freeloader1969 said:
My 3700+ Sandy does 2.8ghz on stock voltage on the stock cooler. Plus it has the 1mb cache. It screams in all apps! I wouldn't even replace it for a X3800x2 processor. :)
Click to expand...
Are you serious?
 
freeloader1969 said:
My 3700+ Sandy does 2.8ghz on stock voltage on the stock cooler. Plus it has the 1mb cache. It screams in all apps! I wouldn't even replace it for a X3800x2 processor. :)
Click to expand...
I think I'd replace it in about 3-6 (??) months when apps and games can actually use it! ;)


But that's just me.....:D
 
PRCop said:
Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Yes he is serious. It can't game with this. 3700+ was the best option for my budget for a gamer rig. ^^^ 3 to 6 months? Is he serious? An x2 with 1 meg cache would be the best of both worlds. End of story. Any x2 user (w 512 cache) with a GTX want to have a bench off in gaming benchmarks(real or synthetic) and I will be happy to oblige. Obviously more GTX speed might beat it. All is fair in love and benchmarking, I will do my best. The door is open.

Dual cores is two cores on one chip. Sweet. But now that it's the in thing everyone wants one. Before that, we wouldn't need to have so many pointless discussions. It's a freaking duallie, NO MAGIC. Dual core and gaming bliss has not come full circle, and we'll be playing UT2k7 or so before it might. It amazes me how many think a 3700+ is a shit buy, when the x2 3800+ is still $100 or so more (that's conservative) and you lose cache. They have their uses, that's for sure. Blazing gaming for someone like the OP that won't be keeping it forever, is not one of them. Dual cores are for multitaskers. "in" or not.

Is an x2 performing as a venice in games slower than a sandy... yes. Are 3800+ x2's generally hitting 2.7 to 2.8GHz... no. Does it cost more... yes... practically buying the two cores full price still. Better off keeping the cache and throwing the extra towards a second gig of ram. You can debate but it's all obvious. It's knowing your uses. FX's are San Diego's... what more proof do you need. I didn't buy mine too long ago. It shall be my last single core, but for gaming it was clear. I would probably trade, it's a more expensive processor. Faster in games definitely not.
 
Funny you should ask this. I have a 3.0c @3.6, and a sandy 3700 @ 2.64 and the sandy is either the same or much faster in almost all of the benches I have tried. I would suggest switching over for not only that reason, but to get on with pci-e.
 
meatfestival said:
2.8ghz at 1.35v? yeah, right.
Click to expand...
Stock voltage on a RevE is anywhere in the 1.35V to 1.4V range. It is entirely possible to oc a San Diego pretty far without upping the Vcore. My 3000+ Venice is running at 2.4GHz @ 1.375V.
 
SLiLOVER said:
Is a 3800+ Newcastle faster than a 3700+ San Diego?
Click to expand...
Yes, by 200MHz.

San Diego 3700+: 2.2GHz 1MB L2 Cache
Newcastle 3800+: 2.4GHz 512kb L2 cache
 
My 3700+ defaults to 1.40 in my BIOS. I've seen several reach 2800mhz on stock voltage now, whether it be 1.35 or 1.40. Most were 0517's.
 
dont upgrade... you wont notice that much of a difference...

everyone is always talking about benches... but that crap doesnt even matter.... the real-world difference is minimal. amd wins in game benches but if you have a good video card... it doesnt matter if it's a 3.6 p4 or a 2.6 amd64... it will feel and look the same.

unless you're getting an x2, dont upgrade.... i regretted going from a 3.5ghz p4 to a 2.6 venice because there was no difference but in benches. real world stuff.... i couldnt multitask for shit and was getting the same performance in games.
 
I agree with the above. Unless you want to spend the bucks on the X2 you will miss HT. Either way you should be good.
 
i went from a p4 2.4C@3.0 to a venice 3000+ and at stock speeds, i could tell a difference, especially in cpu intensive apps like cubase sx 2. 3.0 was about as high as the 2.4C would go for me, even with water cooling, but this venice is at 2800 on stock hsf, and i think would have even more room if i had a water block for it... and i can honestly say, i don't miss hyperthreading...
 
does 1 meg cache really help at all?........becuase i have a rare s939 newcastle 3700 but its actually a newcastle 3800 becuz its at 2.4 ghz and it has 512 cache ...but cpu-z says 3700 owell...i just wanted to know how much the extra 512 helps because ppl say "u can add mhz but u cant add the cache".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top