Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by TX3, May 9, 2005.
which Venice chip will you be getting when they surface shortly?
3500+ for me
screw venice.. san diego baby!
I am busting for one of these...
3500+ for me too
poll posted now....
In the Venice, 3200+, should be here tomorrow
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...
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
3000+ for me... until Dual core!
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
when a5re the 3800 venices being released
so far i only hear of 3200's an 3500's
3200+...Because the multiplier is the lowest even number of the bunch.
I don't wanna spend too much as I want dual-core.
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?
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.........
1024MB of L2 cache would be pretty sweet
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....
3000+ for me, unless i have the cash for a 3200+.
i'd like to overclock the sucker and see how far it goes
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.
lol , yep meant 1024KB
hmm, I thought that the doubled L2 cache was the difference between 3200+ and 3500+.....what IS the difference then?
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+
and why is the 11 multi better than the 10?
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