Venice Core or San Diego Core

[stryoftheyearxx]

Is there a difference between a Venice Core or a San diego Core proccser?
And which one is better, also would an extra 512 kb in the L2 chache do much?

 

[coldfrench]

Yes it makes a difference- esp in Games! Its easy to show you by looking at a celeron versus a P4 (if they had the same clock speed and FSB) - the celeron has the same instructions, just a much smaller cache- it simply dosent preform like a p4 (if a p4 can be said to preform).

If you want to casualy do nothing on your comp, get a celeron/sempron- they will do most things just as well as another chip. If you want to do anything serious at all, get a bigger, better chip. Infact, dont get anything. Just wait till conro comes out and get that. Or if your desperate to have something right now then get an amd chip. and overclock the sh1t out of it.

 

[stryoftheyearxx]

so which one would be better Venice or San Diego?

 

[dragabain]

The San Deigo has 1mb of L2 cache while the venice has 512kb cache. I'd go with a San Deigo. Some people say adding the extra 512kb is like adding 200mhz to the processor.

 

[stryoftheyearxx]

ok thanxs im gonna get teh san diego

 

[sirheck]

yes the 3700 at 2.2 with 1meg of l2cache is 215 dollars at new egg
and its the sandy core
the 3500 venice is 2.2 and 512 l2 cache and it is 201 dollars at new egg
so the 3700 is the deal
i have the 3700 and it is currently at 2.6 and working fine

 

[Mr_Bill]

Actually the Pentium/Celeron cache explaination is not valid for making judments about the impact of cache on the A64 architecture. (In fact a Sempron running a 2 Ghz with 128kB of L2 cach runs similar to a 2.8GHz Prescott P4 w/ 1MB of L2 cache.) The architecture are that different!

Your bet bet is to look at a few relevant benchmarks before making your choice.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html