I'm throwing together a PC, not sure which CPU would be faster. I'm debating between Athlon 3700+ San Diego, 1mb L2 cache or the Athlon 3800+ Venice, 512K L2 cache. I'm just not sure what would be the better overclocker and performer. I'm liking the 1mb cache and San Diego revision but the 3800+ is clocked a little higher stock speed.
Then again, I might go all-out and spend the extra bucks for the 4000+. I'm just trying to see if anyone has any opinions/experiences on these new revisions. One thing to note is that unless I change my mind I'll be using a very vanilla Foxconn or Gigabyte micro ATX m-board b/c it's a SFF PC...so I won't be able to overclock excessively.
<b> Life is about gettin laid and getting paid...so hookers have it made </b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by purdude on 07/21/05 10:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
The san diego is going to be faster, but you could get a lower venice and clock it to the same speeds. If you really want a high processor, I wouldn't buy any higher than the 3700+. However, if you just want 3700+ speeds I would buy a lower venice and clock it >= that.
There are some very nice Micro ATX boards comming to the market. I have a Foxconn WinFast NF4K8MC here for testing, look for a review in 2-3 weeks at Sysopt!
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>