Athlon64,Socket 939 cores

[Dewayne Thomas]

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

 

[Tony]

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!

 

[Tony]

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: <[email protected]>

Tony!

 

[Bob Knowlden]

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.

 

[Michael Chan]

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?