San Diego vs. Venice?

Status
Not open for further replies.
already having a fast clock speed does not mean it'll run any cooler...where do you get this idea from?

Same clock speed at same voltage will run the same temp regardless if one started at 2.4GHz and the other at 2GHz....especially considering they are both exactly the same architecture minus the whole 1mb vs 512kb cache.
 
No...just like some video cards have more Vram in it....the cache is just internal memory that doesn't have to do with the actual architecture of the CPU as far as how the actual core is made and things like that.

The venice and san diego both has the new SSE3 instructions as well as the same silicon design that's slightly different than the winchester, this is the reason for the good overclockability.

The only thing I had heard was some speculation, mind you 'purely' speculation from people before these chips came out, that AMD might pull a move to make san diego's OC better to lure people to buy the more expensive chips and go for 1mb L2 cache, but it really doesn't appear that way from the SD and venice results I've seen
 
honestly I highly doubt it, plus that'd contradict bebops statement :p

But yeah, it might be in terms of a molecular scale lol, but really RAM in general doesn't output much heat, so I really can't see a small amount of cache doing so either.

Basically it'd be an inmeasurable amount of heat IMO
 
I would just get the 3000 venice. It is about 50 dollars cheaper than the 3200 last time I looks\ed and can problably hit the same clock speed.
 
The san diego isn't worth the extra cost imo. the cheapest one (3700+) costs $335.
The cheapest venice (3000+) costs 150.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom