amd athlon 64

[sonoma1993]

I was looking at monarchcomputer.com website, browsing through there amd athlon 64 proccessors too see if they had preorder for the venice core yet. Well they but i notice they had a athlon 64 3700 1mb at 2.4ghz with a 1600mhz hypertransport for skt 939. well i know the 3800+ has the 2000mhz hypertransport and also runs at 2.4ghz but only 512k of cache. and the 4000+ also runs at 2.4ghz with a 2000mhz hypertransport with 1mb l2 cache. How would the 3700 model compare to 4000 and 3800 in performace wise mostly for games, for pinnace studio 9 for making home movies from vhs and putting them on dvd? the 3700 model is about $40 cheaper? would it having only a 1600mhz hurt performace that much or not really? If im going to get one of these two, it either gonna be the 3800 rev e or the 3700 skt 939 rev e.

 

[ArnoldLayne]

Both have 2000MHz HT. Check the retail 3700 specs. Monarch cut and pasted incorrect text from the 3700 socket 754, and it is still on the OEM chip.
Nobody has compared the two (3700 & 3800) processors head to head yet that I know of. Some oddball site I'd never heard of had a 3700 San Diego.

You may be better off buying an Intel for encoding with Pinnacle Studio 9. See Tom's Hardware cpu chart: http://216.92.52.205/index.html?modelx=33&model1=64&model2=18&chart=29

 

[sonoma1993]

im already running a amd athlon 64 3200+ skt 939 on a msi k8n neo2 platinum

 

[ArnoldLayne]

Are you saying that you only want to upgrade your processor? It doesn't seem worth it to me since you
are only talking about a roughly 15% CPU improvement by going from your 3200 to a 4000.
SSE3 might increase that a bit more.

 

[sonoma1993]

i just check amd website, it said the 3700 is a 2.2ghz i also run 2gb of ram, 4x512 of corsair twinx 3200. so yeah, having the newer chip will fix my memory so it can run at 200mhz instead of 166mhz. I use tthe 2gb of ram when i play star war galaxies and when i play everyquest 2. it helps keeps the framerate more stable espically in swg when running full detail with full shadow which hurt my framerate when using 1gb of ram.

 

[ArnoldLayne]

It will run at 200MHz bus speed, but still at 2T. 4 sticks just is not a good setup on Athlon 64s.

 

[anandtechrocks]

A couple of days ago on the Monarch website, the 3700+ Rev. E, said it only had a 64-bit memory controller similar to socket 754 chips, but Monarach has since then changed it. I figured that maybe the 3700+ was just a 90nm 939 version of the 754 version but i'm not sure. If it truely is a 128-bit 939 2.4ghz processor with 1 meg cache, it seems like a pretty nice processor capable of overclocking and it has the added bonus of the 1 meg cache, which according the Anand, is similar to having an extra 200 mhz.

 

[sonoma1993]

id double check that 3700 on amd.com website, it said the 3700 is skt 939 running at 2000mhz hypertransport and 2.2ghz cpu speed. i think the info on monarchcomputer for the oem 3700 rev e skt 939 is wrong.

 

[Clandestiny]

Athlong? Haha. That's classic.

 

[Aenslead]

Spec wise, Athlon 64 skt 754 3700+ is exactly the same as an Athlon 64 skt 939 4000+, at less than half the price: 2.4Ghz w/1Mb cache.

The only difference is dual channel... which, in reality... is no real difference whatsoever.

 

[anandtechrocks]

Aenslead, the new 90nm 3700+ is 939 so i believe it is dual channel as well, but they lowered the frequency of the processor to 2.2ghz instead of 2.4ghz in the 754 version.

What I am curious about is why the 2.2ghz with 1 meg lvl 2 cache 3700+ is rated lower than the 3800+ which has a 200mhz advantage, but only has 512kb lvl 2 cache. It seems like the 2.2ghz 3700+ could easily surpass the 3800+'s few extra mhz with very light overclocking.

I mean the 3700+ rev. E is going for around $340 at Monarch and for $200 more the almost identical 4000+ only has 200 more mhz, with everything else exactly the same.

 

[sonoma1993]

i think i'll order me a 3700+ rev e and overclock it some, i think that chip will be the new mainstream one.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I agree, It looks to be the next hot overclocker. I have already preordered one.

 

[sourceninja]

Now I'm even more torn. I was going to order a 3800 for my new PC. But after looking at the 3700, I think that might be a better choice, the 1meg cache is nice and its cheaper than the 3800.

 

[Aenslead]

Thing is... A64 architecture doesn't care much about memory bandwith or cache size. Often, speed increases RARELLY surpas 5% against lower cached processors at the same speed.

As Zeebo said in his OC guide: Frequency speed is the king.

What really matters in an A64 processor, is the nominal speed. I don't have the patience right now to look for it, but somewhere in the net, they tested 4 processors from AMD based on the A64 architecture with different cache sizes: 128Kb, 256kb (for Sempron) 512Kb, 1Mb (for A64) at the same speed (1.6Ghz; they downclocked them so they'd make a fair comparassion) and the results where trully amazing: The 1mb processor rarelly had a noticeable advantage over the rest, sauf, say, 3d Max.

Cache has the same effect on the A64 as Dual Channel: almost none.

 

[anandtechrocks]

According to one of Anand's earlier reviews on the 4000+ and FX-55, the extra 1 Mb is about the equivalent to 200mhz (when the 4000+ is compaired to the 3800+). But, regardless, the 3700+ seems to me like the X800XL of the current Radeon line. For example, the X800 Pro is $100 dollars more than the XL, but achieves less preformance because of 12 pipes instead of 16 in the XL. If the 3700+ is released as Monarch has described, I believe it will be one powerful chip.

 

[gate1975mlm]

I did some MAJOR research & found that there will be many different varieties of CPU's coming out soon. Some will be based on the "San Diego Core" & others with the "Venice Core"

The only difference between these two cores is the L2 cache. That is it.

Here is what I found out & in USA Prices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

San Diego Core: Code "BN"
Athlon 64 FX-57 939 1MB L2 2.8 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $ ? (Multi Unlocked)
Athlon 64 FX-55 939 1MB L2 2.6 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $827 (Multi Unlocked)
Athlon 64 4200+ 939 1MB L2 2.6 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $ ?
Athlon 64 4000+ 939 1MB L2 2.4 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $549
Athlon 64 3700+ 939 1MB L2 2.2 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $327
Athlon 64 3500+ 939 1MB L2 2.0 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $270 (Awesome OC'er)

Venice Core: Code "BP"
Athlon 64 4200+ 939 512k L2 2.8 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $ ?
Athlon 64 4000+ 939 512k L2 2.6 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $540
Athlon 64 3800+ 939 512k L2 2.4 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $389
Athlon 64 3500+ 939 512k L2 2.2 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $272
Athlon 64 3200+ 939 512k L2 2.0 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $199
Athlon 64 3000+ 939 512k L2 1.8 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $149
Athlon 64 2800+ 939 512k L2 1.6 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $ ?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: anandtechrocks
According to one of Anand's earlier reviews on the 4000+ and FX-55, the extra 1 Mb is about the equivalent to 200mhz (when the 4000+ is compaired to the 3800+). But, regardless, the 3700+ seems to me like the X800XL of the current Radeon line. For example, the X800 Pro is $100 dollars more than the XL, but achieves less preformance because of 12 pipes instead of 16 in the XL. If the 3700+ is released as Monarch has described, I believe it will be one powerful chip.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-venice_8.html

read this and tell me how why the 4000+ does so poorly versus the 3800+ venice with only 512kb of cache...200 PR points is a joke....like Barton Pr rating all over again....

That being said I have a sckt939 so I wikll have to watch this one....I think the 3500-3800+ winchesters will do nicely....


It appears the only thing versus the clawhammer 4000+ is that it is sckt754 and obviously single channle controller...So the question is for possibly a 130nm part and single channle mmeory controller it is 300 pr points lower??? Is anybody seeing why I think AMD has mucked things up???

 

[anandtechrocks]

Duvie, the Anand review was compairing the old Newcastle core 3800+ with the clawhammer 4000+, and it was here that the 1 Mb lvl 2 cache made a difference. I think the overall performance increase was about 5%, which satisfies the 5% preformance rating from 3800 to 4000. This being said, I have read the Xbitlabs review, and I cannot explain why the new VIENCE core 3800+ is beating the old Clawhammer 4000+. Hopefully when Anand does its review it will all make sence.

If what gate1975 is correct, I too think that the 3500+ San Diego core chip will be an excellent overclocker. Seems like AMD is finally releasing socket 939 1 Mb lvl 2 cache chips that are affordable.

 

[Duvie]

However the 3800+ venice clocked similarly to the newcastles 3800+'s 2.4ghz and same 512kb doesn't appears to lose buy that amount in the xbit test....Go up there and write down all the percentage increases from the 3800+ newcastle to the 4000+ claw and then the venice 3800+ to tjhe claw....I am hard pressed to find really morwe then 1 or 2 places above 2-3% let alone 5%....

I will search for anandtech's article, but I normally read them all and I dont remember even seeing the L2 cache deliver on the PR rating, period....

 

[Duvie]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249&p=4

So out of like 40+ test...the 3800+ newcastle with 2ch memory and only diff the 512kb less of cache...There were only 4 test of 5% or greater...there was about 3 in the 2.5-4% range and all the rest were in the 0-2% range with average more like 1.5% range....So no it doesn't deliver period....Then go up and look at the venice versus the newcastle and that is just a bit smaller now as well...very defined use for that cache to be what it claims...


MOzilla and Sysmark communicator = ~5%
HL2 = 7.5% for some weird reason....
UT2004 = 5%

Winrar and winzip = 2.5%
Doom 3 = 3%
3dsmax 5.1 = 4% though 3dmax 6 should ZIPPO!!!!


Now lets go to Xbit...

HL2 now becomes 4.5%
Doom3 and UT2004 now are 1.5%

Then in Quake 3 the 3800+ wins....It also wins in about 8 out of 20 test...ties in 3 of them.....seems pretty weak to me....

I would call on AT or anyone to prove where the 4000+ deserves it rating based on the 3700+, 3800+NC, and 3800+ venice cores.....Cmon prove it...

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I agree, It looks to be the next hot overclocker. I have already preordered one.

Yep. same here

 

[anandtechrocks]

Personally I'm going to wait for the 3500+ version of the San Diego, it's 200mhz less than the 3700+ but still has the 1 Mb lvl 2 cache. This is the one to wait for in my opinion.

 

[FiberoN]

Originally posted by: Clandestiny
Athlong? Haha. That's classic.

haha yeah

 

[msi1337]

dude, did you see that guys bulging athlong!