3500+ and 3700+

[hitman24]

i really dont see a big difference in them the 3500 is cheaper but is it worth osme extra money for the 3700?

 

[jaguarskx]

I would go for the 3500+. The 3700+ may have more cache, but the clock speed is the same as the 3500+. The extra cache will provide a little performance increase, but not for the amount of money you pay.

Overclocking a 3500+ by just 100MHz should more or less equal the performance of a 3700+, if not beat it.

 

[sunangel]

I would go for the 3500+. The 3700+ may have more cache, but the clock speed is the same as the 3500+. The extra cache will provide a little performance increase, but not for the amount of money you pay.

Overclocking a 3500+ by just 100MHz should more or less equal the performance of a 3700+, if not beat it.

AGREED!

 

[freeagent]

id go with the 3700.. the one i had was of the same batch as the FX.. it was basically an fx55 in hideing, as it did 2650 on stock 1.4v, and 2850 with 1.45. and it also did a few 3100mhz power runs with alot of volts. the cache is good to have.. thats why its there

 

[m25]

i really dont see a big difference in them the 3500 is cheaper but is it worth osme extra money for the 3700?

Absolutely NOT!

 

[sunangel]

Your forget the whole point of buying AMD. Remember, you buy AMD for the most bang for the buck. Knowing that AMD always gives you a decent overclock, you always buy the lower processor and oc your way up to higher speeds. What is ya ignorant? Otherwise, you buy Intel and get brute force strength at all speeds.

 

[angry_ducky]

These prices are from newegg:
A64 3500+ Venice (s939): $109
A64 3700+ San Diego (s939): $210
The only difference between the two CPUs is that the 3700+ has double the L2 cache. The $100 premium for the 3700+ is not worth it. I have a 3700+, and it's a great CPU; it's very fast. But when I bought it (April), it was only about $15 more than the 3500+. If I was buying now, I'd definately get the 3500+, or maybe even a 3000+ to save $20.

 

[MG37221]

These prices are from newegg:
A64 3500+ Venice (s939): $109
A64 3700+ San Diego (s939): $210
The only difference between the two CPUs is that the 3700+ has double the L2 cache. The $100 premium for the 3700+ is not worth it. I have a 3700+, and it's a great CPU; it's very fast. But when I bought it (April), it was only about $15 more than the 3500+. If I was buying now, I'd definately get the 3500+, or maybe even a 3000+ to save $20.

Or better still, wait two weeks and get a 3800+. 2.4GHz with 512KB of L2. It's a screamer and should be priced quite reasonably.

 

[sirheck]

i have the 3700 and my brother has the 3500
the rest of my specs.
asus 32sli deluxe.
4 512s corsair xms.
6800gt just 1

my brothers is.
msi k8neo4 sli.
x800xl
4 512s corsair value selct.

both computers are the same performance wise.
we cant see any diff.
i have had mine oced to 2.6 on the cpu
and the video card oced 430 and 1.5

my brother doesnt oc and still no diff.

 

[freeagent]

i think its worth it... like i said, 2.8 and upish is about the norm, with lowish to moderate volts.. im talking about the sandys and not the toledo 3700s. the 1mb cache cpus wont come down in price, so of course the 3200 is going to be cheaper.. i guess im a snob.. i havent used a 512kb L2 cpu since my mobile barton days.

my 3700 was hella fast, and my 4400 is hella fast, and alot more powerful.

those venice cores can scale, but from what ive seen, most of em need volts, id rather pay for the quality of a sandy.

 

[sirheck]

sorry i forgot, my brothers is the clawhammer 130nm
which doesnt mean any thing except for more vlt and heat

 

[maxtoons]

id go with the 3700.. the one i had was of the same batch as the FX.. it was basically an fx55 in hideing, as it did 2650 on stock 1.4v, and 2850 with 1.45. and it also did a few 3100mhz power runs with alot of volts. the cache is good to have.. thats why its there

I heard about this, but how would you know

 

[nelsonmf]

id go with the 3700.. the one i had was of the same batch as the FX.. it was basically an fx55 in hideing, as it did 2650 on stock 1.4v, and 2850 with 1.45. and it also did a few 3100mhz power runs with alot of volts. the cache is good to have.. thats why its there

hi,
how do you know that your CPU was of the same batch as the FX?
How i know the best stepping code of ATHLON 64 for overclocking?

 

[RichPLS]

I have an Opty 175 running 2.64GHz at 1.40 volts... and it is using 4 sticks of Corsair 512MB RAM timed 2.5-3-3-8-3-2T

 

[Non-Profit]

I've had a 3500 for more than a year and it's a very fast processor. If I was in your situation, I would invest the cost difference in extra memory or a video card upgrade...

 

[freeagent]

ok, well, it might not have been the exact same batch as an fx, here is my stepping ADA3700DAA5BN KABYE0542FPMW

Now, according to This site, DAA5BN shows FX. The KAYBE is pulled from the opty bin (CABYE is the opty varient) a friend has an opty, same stepping, week everything, except its cabye, and doess 100mhz more then mine, with about .05v less. stable. and from what i understand, alot of FX's that didnt meet the voltage requirements, were thrown into the opty bin. So.. from what i gathered from that particular cpu, and saw how it overclocked (very linearly until 1.5v) it showed some of thesame tendencys of the higher end chips.

 

[sadsephiroth]

I've got a 3500+ Venice sitting at 2575 @ 29c. Get the 3500+, or face the squirely? wrath.

 

[freeagent]

I've got a 3500+ Venice sitting at 2575 @ 29c. Get the 3500+, or face the squirely? wrath.

Not bad..

 

[sadsephiroth]

Arctic cooling Freezer 64 Pro, and good wiring make it happen.

 

[random_foxx]

I have a unique ability to answer this better than most:

I have an 3700+ in my system right now, but for around a year or so I had a 3500+. I cannot tell any difference between the two of them, except for in benchmarking scores.

Go for the one with the best price, you can't go wrong. If you want to spend the money, get a dual core to plan for the future. Otherwise, if these are your two options, they are so similar it doesn't make sense to pay more for one or the other.

 

[nelsonmf]

freeagent

thanks

 

[hitman24]

well thanks for the info. so if i get and 3500+ i would still see the same results as if i went with a 3700+ both non OC

 

[bitsbytesandboolean]

I am debating over getting an opty or an x2 when the price drop happens in the next few months.... would you advocate the opty if I can get it for the same price (or close) to the x2. If i understand, the opty was built for servers and is constructed at higher tolderences?

 

[dougie_boy]

I have a unique ability to answer this better than most:

I have an 3700+ in my system right now, but for around a year or so I had a 3500+. I cannot tell any difference between the two of them, except for in benchmarking scores.

Go for the one with the best price, you can't go wrong. If you want to spend the money, get a dual core to plan for the future. Otherwise, if these are your two options, they are so similar it doesn't make sense to pay more for one or the other.

true. real time your hardly going to be able to tell the difference but you could end up with a 3500+ with an older core. im suprised the price gap is that wide. over in the uk you can pick up a 3700 for £91. bargin. and the 3500 is 75. for 15 quid id go for the 3700+ everytime. hits 2.8 with air easy.