San Diego 3700+ Benchmarks Anywhere?

[rafster]

Hi all,

I currently have every part for my new computer, bar the CPU.

I am unsure wether to purchase a AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice Core or a 3700+ San Diego.

The cache is really tempting, and the possiblity of reaching FX5x speeds.

I believe the extra cache will work wonders in encoding.

Are there any benchmark comparisons for these two, and what is the best to purchase? (CPU will be overclocked)

Thanks.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Thats the $$$$ question! As far as I know there haven't been any head to head reviews done and the OEM chips are just starting to ship. Watch the forums here and at Extremesystems.org over the next couple of weeks and should get your answer.

There have been some previews featuring engineering samples of the two new cores at Extreme and DFI street and others, but who knows if the hand picked engineering samples are representative of what we will be getting.

I placed my bet on the SD 3700+ it's scheduled for delivery monday. Stay tuned

 

[rafster]

I did see one review at a German site, but I do not care about SuperPi scores nor any Game Benchmark app like Aquamark etc, I want to know how it performs in real life tasks like encoding MP3 and encoding video to XViD

I am more inclined on the San Diego to be honest too, I wonder what it will be like under XP64 as well...

Got the whole box built and everything, just the socket is CPU-less

 

[Dadofamunky]

Yep, those puppies will be hittin' our doorsteps (or our office shipping departments) on Monday. You should expect to see a flurry of activity (and probably some breast-beating too) late that eve. And I went for the 3700+ too.

So far, I've tried both a Newcastle 3500+ and Winnie 3000+ and have not gotten a stable OC beyond 2.4 GHz. Still, for the 3000+ that's not horrible. People are yakking about getting into 3 GHz-land with San Diegos - but we'll see.

I hope someone posts a a thread with a poll of OC results in these new CPUs.

 

[imported_SLIM]

Originally posted by: rafster
Hi all,

I currently have every part for my new computer, bar the CPU.

I am unsure wether to purchase a AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice Core or a 3700+ San Diego.

The cache is really tempting, and the possiblity of reaching FX5x speeds.

I believe the extra cache will work wonders in encoding.

Are there any benchmark comparisons for these two, and what is the best to purchase? (CPU will be overclocked)

Thanks.

Why don't you look at current reviews that compare 3800's to 4000's... the only difference between them is the extra 512k of cache. Which AFAIK happens to be the only difference between the venice and san diego.
here

For the lazy, the extra cache doesn't do much at all. The new kings of encoding are the X2's, but you gotta dig deep to pay for that kind of performance.

 

[rafster]

Thanks for the reply

The thing is, the Venice 3800+ is clocked at 2.4ghz, as opposed to 2.2ghz for the SD.

I guess if the SD OC's well, which judging by early results it does, then it's the better choice, FX5x performance for a far cheaper price!

I'd like to see benchmarks of a Stock Venice 3800 vs Stock San Diego 3700.

Ta.

Originally posted by: SLIM

Why don't you look at current reviews that compare 3800's to 4000's... the only difference between them is the extra 512k of cache. Which AFAIK happens to be the only difference between the venice and san diego.
here

For the lazy, the extra cache doesn't do much at all. The new kings of encoding are the X2's, but you gotta dig deep to pay for that kind of performance.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

From the early results of the Venice chips showing up on all the forums, It looks like most of them hit 2.5-2.7 pretty easily with a few hitting 2.8+ on air. The few early San Diegos seem maybe just a little better hitting 2.6-2.8 with possibly the best ones reaching 2.9 on air. It's starting to look like 3ghz stable on air is still a dream.

 

[Duvie]

I was just reading some over at extremes website forum...NOt as high as I would have expected either....

I am a bit disappointed so far...I have not seen much that gives me hope I can be close to assured (about as good as you can get with OCing and my past "fortunate" luck) of getting 2.85-3.0ghz with anything yet...

 

[rafster]

I'd be happy with anything over 2.6ghz personally, FX55 speed or more would be most excellent, and with intensive encoding (tests should use Lame 3.90.3 (Dilbert Compile) with --alt-preset standard command line as it is much more intensive than just using the nwest Lame and any cmd line, that one gives VBR output, and that build of lame is by far the best for producing VBR output)