3800+ and 3700+

Status
Not open for further replies.
p0werslave said:
Uhhhhhhh no. The 3800 is better because it's dual core in terms of multi tasking, but for gaming the 3700 is better.

yah man single core 3800+ not the 3800+ X2

and duckmoose if you are not overclocking the 3800 works out better
 
no OC the 3800 is better
OC the 3700 is better because when you overclock it (well past 3800 speeds btw) you'll have the bigger cache which may be more beneficial at higher clock speeds
 
i say the 3700 is much better because when it OC it can go past the 3800 and because of the cache, where as the 3800 will go past the 3700 in OC it will lose out because of the 512kb cache
 
Stock speeds, the 3800 is going to squeak ahead. That's why it carries the name "3800+". Those are speed ratings that AMD assigns their processors. The 3700+ is going to be slightly behind it because of the lower clock speeds. They have diferent cores, etc, etc...

The 3800 comes out on top with stock speeds, but the 3700+ offers more overclocking headroom

Ryan
 
I'm debating over the 4000 or the 3700. lol. Am i just crazy for not considering the 3800? If the only issue with OC is heat...and id have plenty of ventilation...then how easy is it to OC? just fudge some numbers in the Bios right? bus speed and....the multiplier? IDK much about OC but it seems simply.
 
The 3800 is better. 200 mhz makes a bigger increase in performace then a 1mb cache.

Not at all infact, why would you spend $50 or more on buying the 3800+, when you can buy the 3700+ (that the 3800+ can't touch no matter what), and then overclock it by a small 200mhz amount. Not only will it have the same operating frequency of the 3800+, but it will also have double the cache. Oh and you saved ~ $50 ;)
 
Dude seriously. I said the 3700 is better for OCing but I was talking about stock settings. Not everyone OCs so enough with the OC thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom