Can some one tell me the difference between the Athlon 64, socket 939
with a Venice core or one with a San Diego Core. I'm building a
system with the A8N-VM board which list the Athlon 64 as an acceptable
processor.The vendor I'm looking at list CPUs with both cores, the
3800+ Venice core about $60 less than the 4000+ San Diego core.
Assuming both will work on the A8N-VM board is the San Diego core
worth the $60 when I'm going to run the board right out of the box, no
gaming.

Thanks for any replys.

Dewayne

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:07:41 GMT, Dewayne Thomas <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>Can some one tell me the difference between the Athlon 64, socket 939
>with a Venice core or one with a San Diego Core. I'm building a
>system with the A8N-VM board which list the Athlon 64 as an acceptable
>processor.The vendor I'm looking at list CPUs with both cores, the
>3800+ Venice core about $60 less than the 4000+ San Diego core.
>Assuming both will work on the A8N-VM board is the San Diego core
>worth the $60 when I'm going to run the board right out of the box, no
>gaming.
>
>Thanks for any replys.
>
>Dewayne

San Diego has 1 meg of onboard cache instead of 512k

Supposed to be quicker doing things like compiling programs, video
rendering etc...

It was the choice I made when I was looking at buying one of the two
myself a few weeks ago.. (Still haven't put the pc together yet
though)

Tony!

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:07:41 GMT, Dewayne Thomas <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>Can some one tell me the difference between the Athlon 64, socket 939
>with a Venice core or one with a San Diego Core. I'm building a
>system with the A8N-VM board which list the Athlon 64 as an acceptable
>processor.The vendor I'm looking at list CPUs with both cores, the
>3800+ Venice core about $60 less than the 4000+ San Diego core.
>Assuming both will work on the A8N-VM board is the San Diego core
>worth the $60 when I'm going to run the board right out of the box, no
>gaming.
>
>Thanks for any replys.
>
>Dewayne


If your news provider still has this post, it may help u.

Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>

Tony!

They're similar.

The Venice core CPUs have 512 kB of L2 cache, while the San Diego cores have
1 MB. There may be other distinctions, but that's the major one.

The 3800+ Venice has the same clock as the 4000+ San Diego (2.4 GHz).

Whether the 1 MB cache improves performance depends on the application.
Tasks that can execute in 1 MB (but not 512 kB) will be much faster on the
4000+ than the 3800+.

If you need the extra cache, you might also consider the 3700+ San Diego
(2.2 GHz). It's much cheaper than the 3800+.


Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Dewayne Thomas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Can some one tell me the difference between the Athlon 64, socket 939
> with a Venice core or one with a San Diego Core. I'm building a
> system with the A8N-VM board which list the Athlon 64 as an acceptable
> processor.The vendor I'm looking at list CPUs with both cores, the
> 3800+ Venice core about $60 less than the 4000+ San Diego core.
> Assuming both will work on the A8N-VM board is the San Diego core
> worth the $60 when I'm going to run the board right out of the box, no
> gaming.
>
> Thanks for any replys.
>
> Dewayne

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:10:04 -0500, "Bob Knowlden" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>They're similar.
>
>The Venice core CPUs have 512 kB of L2 cache, while the San Diego cores have
>1 MB. There may be other distinctions, but that's the major one.
>
>The 3800+ Venice has the same clock as the 4000+ San Diego (2.4 GHz).
>
>Whether the 1 MB cache improves performance depends on the application.
>Tasks that can execute in 1 MB (but not 512 kB) will be much faster on the
>4000+ than the 3800+.
>
>If you need the extra cache, you might also consider the 3700+ San Diego
>(2.2 GHz). It's much cheaper than the 3800+.


It is quite strange that the 512KB L2 models has marginally faster than 1MB
counterparts in memory performance benchmarks. Anyone knows is it the cache
algorithm or driver issue?