3500 or 3800

[pc_boy]

that's probably if you comapare the 3700+ San Diego with the 3800+ claw hammer

 

[gaara]

There's no such thing as a 3800+ Clawhammer, it'd be a 4000+ Clawhammer if that were the case.

Get a 3000+, I kinda regret spending the extra money on a 3200+ now but oh well. I have a friend running a 3000+ at 2.7GHz @ 1.6v with an XP-90, and that'll school any 3700+ or 3800+.

 

[GameGURU]

If you can afford a 3800+venice, get a 3700+ san diego.

I agree, it's newer than the Venice...

 

[Sprooty]

has someone got a link to a complete bench of all cpus 3000+ to 4000+ both venice and an diego? (Athlon XP 64)

 

[Megadeth2]

Look, if you asked about the 3500+ or the 3800+, then I'm sure it's not straining your budget to get a 3700+ when it is middle ground.

Overclocking is never a guarantee, so the people who are telling him to get a low-end CPU and then overclock it are giving him false guarantees that a 3000+/3200+ will hit 2.5/2.6/2.7 easily.

The 3700+ has the specs 2200 Clock Speed/1024 KB or 1MB Cache/2000 HTT. The 3800+ has the specs 2400/512k Cache/2000 HTT. Apparently, the 1MB cache is more valuable than that 200 extra clock speed boost.

The 3700+ is better than a 3800+. If the 3700+ runs at 2.4 GHz through overclocking which I do not guarantee, then it will outperform the 3800+ and do slightly bettter than the 4000+.

The 3700+ should be your choice of processor.