AMD 3700+ vs 4000+ - diff?

[leatherbury]

Other than .2 mhz and $35, what is the difference between these two CPUs? The reviews on NEWEGG on both are all good.

 

[jap0nes]

according to amd site there's a 130nm 4000+
but if they are both 90nm, the only difference is 200mhz

 

[dougie_boy]

the cores maybe different. sandy cores are better.

 

[sirheck]

no noticiable difference

 

[sirheck]

i think you should go with the 3700 at new egg for around 99$

if you want dualcore go with the x23800 for around 150$

currently the 3700 will outpreform the x23800 for gaming though

i have oced my 3700 to 2.6ghz on air and did not se any diff.

i have a freind with the x24800 dualcore and still dont see any diff
in gaming that is.
also my brother has a 3500 clawhammer no diff there either

 

[MG37221]

no noticiable difference

I must disagree. If you have a 3700 now, the 4000 isn't worth the upgrade. However, if you are buying one of these two, the 4000 will be noticeably the better performer. These processors scale very well. At 2.4GHz, the 4000 will run rings around the 3700 at 2.2GHz. Both are plenty powerful for anything you may wish to do however.

I went from a socket 754 3700 (2.4GHz with 1MB) to a 939 3500 (2.2GHz with 512KB) and was very disappointed with the reduction in speed. Granted, I also lost half the cache but also went from single to dual channel architecture. Now I'm using an Opteron 175 (4400) and 2.2GHz with that is real nice!

 

[sirheck]

the 400 will not run rings around the 3700
not even in a benchmark.

as far as gaming or everyday usage there will be no diff either

 

[angry_ducky]

the cores maybe different. sandy cores are better.

The only difference between the 3700+ and the 4000+ (I'm talking skt939 procs here) is 200MHz. They both have the same core, and the same cache. When I bought my CPU, then 3700+ was only $15 more than the 3500+ (same clock speed, half the cache), and about $100 less than the 4000+.

At 2.4GHz, the 4000 will run rings around the 3700 at 2.2GHz.

WRONG. The 4000+ is faster, but not by much. I'll bet that you couldn't even tell the difference in speed; only a benchmark will show you that. A 3700+ at 2.4 GHz will perform equally to a stock 4000+. A 3700+ at 2.6GHz will perform equally to a stock FX55. A 3700+ at 2.8GHz will perform equally to a stock FX57. You get the point.

 

[sirheck]

yes i was thinking the 939 to and assuming that is what mr leather
is talking about too.

 

[quantumsheep]

the cores maybe different. sandy cores are better.

The only difference between the 3700+ and the 4000+ (I'm talking skt939 procs here) is 200MHz. They both have the same core, and the same cache. When I bought my CPU, then 3700+ was only $15 more than the 3500+ (same clock speed, half the cache), and about $100 less than the 4000+.

At 2.4GHz, the 4000 will run rings around the 3700 at 2.2GHz.

WRONG. The 4000+ is faster, but not by much. I'll bet that you couldn't even tell the difference in speed; only a benchmark will show you that. A 3700+ at 2.4 GHz will perform equally to a stock 4000+. A 3700+ at 2.6GHz will perform equally to a stock FX55. A 3700+ at 2.8GHz will perform equally to a stock FX57. You get the point.

What he said.

 

[leatherbury]

I get the picture - since these are so cheap already, another $35 for the 4000 (and the stock 200 mhz default) looks good to me - if they run out, then the 3700 will be fine also.

I am not ready for dual core yet, and so this looks like the best deal for a single core.

 

[sirheck]

either way you should be happy goodluck man

 

[m25]

Other than .2 mhz and $35, what is the difference between these two CPUs? The reviews on NEWEGG on both are all good.

If you're on a small budget as I presume; get the 3000+ for $65, a good mombo for $60-70. OC it to 2.6-2.8G and here you are with the performance of a FX-55 or 57. Why spend so much fo a single core A64 when the 3000+ overclocks perfectly.

 

[trinitron64]

When FX series came out I couldn't afford it.

So I bought the 3700+ Sandiego and clocke her up to FX-55.

Stable Stable Stable.

If its the same core/cache then like they said your only difference is the 200Mhz.... which when your overclocking can be passed no problem.

If your choice is one or the other, use your head, go with 3700+.

w00t for FX core in a relatively cheap package!

 

[tysonjb]

I think we have some confusion about what the FX processors are. Above someone said "just get a 3700 or a 4000 and overclock to FX-55 level. What you do not understand is there is a lot more to speed than just the numbers. Ask anyone with a FX processor and they will verify. Not only can they change the MHZ, but they can also change the multiplier. More streams at the same speed will do more, faster, period.

However I admit that the above information really had nothing to do with the original post, but I hate when people give out information to the public that is incorrect.

On a side note if you can figure out how to unlock the multiplier on the 64 processors you could sell that information for some serious cash
Then you could really buy a 3700 or 4000 and get it to true FX levels.

Affirming the above information I doubt you will see any difference at all between the 3700 and 4000, but for the small price difference you can boast you have a 4000

 

[PX7800GT]

if you can afford the extra 35$ its better to have 4K
but there isnt any noticable difference between 3700+ and 4K+
my recommandation : 4K+

 

[angry_ducky]

I think we have some confusion about what the FX processors are.

FX processors are regular San Diego cores with higher (and unlocked) multipliers. The higher multiplier means higher clock speed; the unlocked multiplier means that you can overclock without raising the HTT speed. If you had an FX57, and you set the multiplier to 11, you'd essentially have a 3700+ (200*11=2200MHz).

What you do not understand is there is a lot more to speed than just the numbers.

There's the architecture. ALL K8 CPUs have the same architecture; the only reason FX's perform better is because they have a higher clock speed. There's no magic involved there; just raise the multiplier, and, effectively, the GHz.

If anything, a 3700+ at 2.8GHz would perform BETTER than a stock FX57 because it would have faster HTT (more bandwidth!).

but I hate when people give out information to the public that is incorrect.

So do I. Maybe that's why I hate YOU.

 

[PX7800GT]

Ducky is 100% Right... 8)

 

[tysonjb]

LOL since you seem to be on the right track Ducky explain this.

so my ability to run my fx-55 at 16*240 is just the same as you running your 3700 at 11*240? hmmm 3850 and 2640. Maybe it is your anger that is bluring my vision but I would take the first number anyday.

If what you are trying to get at is, if said person was not willing to over clock a fx chip, but willing to overclock a 3700 they would be equal. That statement would be true. However assuming that said individual was willing to overclock the FX chip too, do you still think they would be the same. Think you can even make a non fx chip equal to a 10% oc on a fx chip?

If you can post a screenprint of your system running stable at 11*350 then I will agree I am stupid and dont know what I am talking about. I dont even think you could do that on liquid nitrogen. I am watercooling mine, so you can of course do the same for yours.

Also I will even go so far to not make you look totally dumb and say that IF you were able to unlock the chip and ajust the multiplier then they would be the same. I have seen a few boards that boast this ability, but show no improvments in speed.

 

[tysonjb]

I think were you are getting mentally stuck is the fact that the fx CPU's will OC too. ZOMG! so saying that buying a 3700 and overclocking the crap out of it would give you performance equal to the fx-55 overclocked is really hard for me to buy. however I supose if you could some how tell your computer not to melt when you bump it to 11*350 then you would have a cpu that cost much less than mine and was very comparable. However I am not sure that the phase cooling system would be cheaper than the 300$ difference in chips. Also assuming I was willing to push mine really hard, how high could I go? I can only go to X16 so there would be a point that they would even out. (just to not get too carried away) lets say 200*15 which would be 3000mhz. I am not sure a 3700 could handle 11*270. If it did can you imagine the over volt you would have to do to it?

My computer on water sits about 42C at 16*240.

While I will agree that the non fx CPUs are fine CPUs and work very well, I dont think you should post such garbage as just buy a 3700+ it will be as fast or faster than the FX. I would think that anyone that can OC a cpu in bios would understand the way a cpu works, however I see tons of stuff where people say "man I bought this because someone said this was this"

 

[tysonjb]

LOL one more thing, I see you post like 20 times a day here. I have a job and am not in HS. I will never spend that kind of time sitting in front of the computer on a tech board.

Oh I really like the "So do I. Maybe that's why I hate YOU" Makes me miss highschool
You can hate me, however before you start talking crap how about you post some kind of data to actaully say something other than smarting off.

As for PX7800GT if you still can't see the difference then I dont know what else to say :roll:

 

[1Tanker]

LOL one more thing, I see you post like 20 times a day here. I have a job and am not in HS. I will never spend that kind of time sitting in front of the computer on a tech board.

Oh I really like the "So do I. Maybe that's why I hate YOU" Makes me miss highschool
You can hate me, however before you start talking crap how about you post some kind of data to actaully say something other than smarting off.

As for PX7800GT if you still can't see the difference then I dont know what else to say :roll:

You're triple-posting to argue doesn't exactly make you look mature either. :?

 

[tysonjb]

Wow I am getting put down for posting in a forum. Doh i thought that was what we did here.

Dont worry I have made a mental note, that I am not to post unless someone else posts.

Oh yeah and I dont care if he is immature, what I was getting at was the "you are stupid because" stuff dont work for me.

 

[Heyyou27]

I am not ready for dual core yet, and so this looks like the best deal for a single core.

Why would you not want a dual core CPU? :?

 

[1Tanker]

Wow I am getting put down for posting in a forum. Doh i thought that was what we did here.

Dont worry I have made a mental note, that I am not to post unless someone else posts.

Oh yeah and I dont care if he is immature, what I was getting at was the "you are stupid because" stuff dont work for me.

Yes, it is...so don't give him grief about doing the same(20 posts a day). You worry about how you spend your day, and we'll worry about ours.