What is your VENICE preference?

Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by TX3, May 9, 2005.

?

Which Venice will you get?

  1. 3000+

    39 vote(s)
    16.2%
  2. 3200+

    86 vote(s)
    35.7%
  3. 3500+

    70 vote(s)
    29.0%
  4. 3800+

    20 vote(s)
    8.3%
  5. sorry, was gunna put the 4000+ here, but thats a San Diego

    26 vote(s)
    10.8%
  1. TX3

    TX3 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,561
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    which Venice chip will you be getting when they surface shortly?
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2005
  2. zoki_007

    zoki_007 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,113
    Location:
    Sydney
    3500+ for me
     
  3. Random_Ninja

    Random_Ninja Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,250
    Location:
    Sydney
    screw venice.. san diego baby!
     
  4. Napalm

    Napalm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    572
    Location:
    Sydney
    3800+

    I am busting for one of these...

    Napalm
     
  5. OP
    OP
    TX3

    TX3 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,561
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    3500+ for me too

    poll posted now....
     
  6. Danthemanz

    Danthemanz Old School Admin

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    2,443
    Location:
    Sydney
    In the Venice, 3200+, should be here tomorrow :D
    3000+ and its 9x Multiplier i see being an issue for any hardcore overclocker, the 3500 is just an 11x multiplier, the 10x should do me fine with a DFI board...

    The 3700+ Sandy would be best of course, but its not available yet and costs alot more...
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2005
  7. eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,902
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    i voted 3800+ as i'm sick of 11x max multiplier, 12x is a must to properly take advantage of all the different ram out there :D
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2005
  8. jlccarv

    jlccarv Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,134
    Location:
    Melbourne
    3000+ for me... until Dual core! :D
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2005
  9. Sephir0th

    Sephir0th Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2002
    Messages:
    2,352
    Location:
    Melbourne
    i think 3200+ is the go. 9x on the 3000+ is really getting annoying, and from what ive seen on xs there isnt a great deal of oc difference between 3200+ and 3500+. So if you want to spend more cash than a 3200+, a sandiego 3500/3700 would be a better option. Only reason for a 3500 (or 3800 even) venice, would be if you have low clocking ram and/or dont want to run async
     
  10. WiG_WaM

    WiG_WaM (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    21
    when a5re the 3800 venices being released

    so far i only hear of 3200's an 3500's
     
  11. stmok

    stmok Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Messages:
    8,878
    Location:
    Sydney
    3200+...Because the multiplier is the lowest even number of the bunch. :)

    I don't wanna spend too much as I want dual-core.
     
  12. OP
    OP
    TX3

    TX3 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,561
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    hmmm, I might have to just get a 3200+ then if theres no real difference in overclockability and the fact that dual core is due out soon...

    the only difference is that the 3500+ has 1024MB in the L2 cache...which does what?
     
  13. Shintaro

    Shintaro Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    889
    Location:
    Sydney
    The place I work at has started shipping decent ammounts of the 3200+ venice cores.
    Haven't seen any other speeds avaliable yet, maybe tomorrow.........
     
  14. Sephir0th

    Sephir0th Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2002
    Messages:
    2,352
    Location:
    Melbourne
    1024MB of L2 cache would be pretty sweet :lol:
    i assume you meant 1MB or 1024KB.

    the venice 3500 has 512k cache, and ive heard the 3500 sandiego also has 512k cache which is a little odd, seeings how the san diego is basically meant to be a venice with 1mb cache....
     
  15. FB008

    FB008 Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9,185
    Location:
    Uncanny Valley
    3000+ for me, unless i have the cash for a 3200+.

    i'd like to overclock the sucker and see how far it goes :D
     
  16. Death 2

    Death 2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    Cambridge, England
    Im going with the 3800+ simply because its the most powerfull one there and im building a new system and it doesn't look like dual core gaming CPU's are going to be out for some time yet. Plus the new dual core systems look hellishly expensive.

    Which of the new Venices overclocks the best though? I want to stick a nice big heatsink on mine and see if i can get it to 3.0Ghz.
     
  17. OP
    OP
    TX3

    TX3 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,561
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    lol :lol: , yep meant 1024KB

    hmm, I thought that the doubled L2 cache was the difference between 3200+ and 3500+.....what IS the difference then?
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2005
  18. the _rick

    the _rick Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    3121
    yep me too, eventually

    the 3500 (11 multi) is 200 mhz faster at stock than the 3200 (10 multi), same as the 3000+ (9 multi) and the 3200+
     
  19. OP
    OP
    TX3

    TX3 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,561
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    and why is the 11 multi better than the 10?
     
  20. the _rick

    the _rick Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    3121
    the difference is that you wont need such a high fsb speed to obtain a high OC, this also helps with clocking ram 1:1.

    ie, this is at stock, so increase from there..

    3500+, 11 x 200 = 2200
    3200+, 10 x 200 = 2000
    3000+, 9 x 200 = 1800,

    correct me if i'm wrong, but its early
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: