San Diego and Venice comparison at same clock speed

I don't know why everyone says San Diego runs so much hotter than Venice. I'm getting way better temps than with my Clawhammer. Although I have pretty good water :) So far full load 2.75Ghz@1.5v goes up to about 31-32C. Which is only 4C higher than I get with stock settings.

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewitte

I don't know why everyone says San Diego runs so much hotter than Venice. I'm getting way better temps than with my Clawhammer. Although I have pretty good water :) So far full load 2.75Ghz@1.5v goes up to about 31-32C. Which is only 4C higher than I get with stock settings.

Eric

---

try to push that thing to around 2.85 and check under load temperature again... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Ok Ben, we've had our history, but I feel as if I should say something:
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. People here aren't trying to discourage you in any way. The reason they're giving you such a hard time is not because they want to believe the Sand Diego performs on par with a Venice. It's because they want to see a controlled test environment where they can make a fair comparison of the cpu's. Here's my suggestion to shut all the nay-sayers up -

Writing a review wasn't as easy as you thought, eh ;) ?

---

Maybe people should just start reading the thread before they go and let bull out :slapass:

What he did i just fine to do a comparison that showes interessting results.


@ Ben:

Nice job!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben805

try to push that thing to around 2.85 and check under load temperature again... ;)

---

Thats for this weekend. Honestly most of the heat comes from vcore. Its still 250Mhz higher AND cooler than my Clawhammer :)

Eric

i would prefer more tests with tccd though, since i dont have that bh5 stuff...

i would also suggest running it at a more then stable setting for BOTH cpu's

fe: 10x260 or whatever that is BELOW ur max stable speed

perhaps u can also decrease the voltage a bit then, so that the SD temp doesnt swing out so high ;)

then just do ur benching thing, no need for reinstalling OS since its 100% stable and cant get corrupted by only benching and switching cpu's ;)

good job finding this out btw!!
had a good laugh reading this thread too ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gsus_Freak

Wow, this thread got crazy. You all need to stop taking ben's valuble data and throwing it in his face. Anyway, the differnces between the two are very small indeed. I don't know how much it will count for in real world aplications. I don't think that you wasted your money on the SD, I would imgaine that it will OC higher than the 3200+ veiny one your phase change.

---

thanks ;)

PCMark04 is as close as you can get to real world applications, it has file encryption, compression, audio and video en/decoding, virus scanning, and all that jazz, but just by 'feeling' and seats-o-pants....I didn't notice any differences between the winnie/SD/venice. This particular San Diego that I got, technically and theoritically.... it should do better under phase change since heat would not be an issue under those extreme temperature, and it requires less vcore the run the same speed as my brother's Venice, of course...this is only speculation and theory, will have to try and see in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben805

I apologize for any confrontation between us in the past, and yes....writing a review ISN'T easy!!

nay-sayers didn't surprised me, but what surprises me the most is the result itself and I'm also surprised that some of these readers insist to read only between lines, and refused to look at the whole picture regardless what kind of proof or explaination you got. The procedure you'd suggested seems logical and make alot of sense, but shouldn't both cpu perform the way they should be under the same condition and circumstances though? I'm refering to the exact same ghost image being use to conduct those tests and I would think it falls well within the same condition? I'm not sure if it would make any difference because an image of hard drive is just that...an image, dot to dot identical, especially when the image came from the exact same machine being restored. :confused:


And for those who'd just got your SD, PLEASE do not RMA or return them for an exchange for a Venice, I do NOT want to take the blame for if....and when ...you receive the Venice and it happen to be a dud that can only managed 2.6Ghz, while the SD that you had probably would do 2.7~2.8 on air. I will receive the Mushkin Redline this week so I'll do more testing as well, and trust me....I won't post any more results like these unless it's worth seeing. ;)

---

Hey, now you know what it felt like to be me dealing with you :p: :D
In regards of your ghosted image - You're right: Running the benches on identical installs can be comparable, but ideally, you'd test on a fresh, clean install. That way, you won't have any problem with progs (like that one earlier) which will pop up at random times and could possibly influence your results. With a fresh install, people won't be arguing - "Well, X prog influenced X result X much". Just ghost a clean install if you like..... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben805

thanks ;)

PCMark04 is as close as you can get to real world applications, it has file encryption, compression, audio and video en/decoding, virus scanning, and all that jazz, but just by 'feeling' and seats-o-pants....I didn't notice any differences between the winnie/SD/venice. This particular San Diego that I got, technically and theoritically.... it should do better under phase change since heat would not be an issue under those extreme temperature, and it requires less vcore the run the same speed as my brother's Venice, of course...this is only speculation and theory, will have to try and see in the near future.

---

last time I ran PCMark04 it told me my 2.3ghz althon was equivilent to a 2ghz pentium 4.
:slap: :slap:

Quote:

---

ben805

---

Great job on this and remember you cannot satisfy every person, there
always be critics. This, said his results even though they are not direct comparison with 3700+ SD & 3200+ Ven. They are still conclusive
between 3200 that is stock @ 2 ghz and the 3700 that is 2.2ghz. The Venice
is doing great job on air @ 2862 at lower cost of the 3700 being almost 35% more. Love too see this 3200+ Venice on single phase like LS or mach II. ;)

I don't get how 2.85GHz is presented as the 3700+ "Maxed Out," what I thought was beyond 100% stable, then all benches are carried out at 2.86 or 2.87 whatever. You should really settle on a speed not that close to maxed out for comparison purposes. You have to do that in an Overclocking review thats supposed to be clock for clock. You could be causing errors dragging your score down.

Yeh, I agree with you texuspete00.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Hey, now you know what it felt like to be me dealing with you :p: :D
In regards of your ghosted image - You're right: Running the benches on identical installs can be comparable, but ideally, you'd test on a fresh, clean install. That way, you won't have any problem with progs (like that one earlier) which will pop up at random times and could possibly influence your results. With a fresh install, people won't be arguing - "Well, X prog influenced X result X much". Just ghost a clean install if you like..... ;)

---

I can imagine that :D :D

Ok, as for testing environment, If I were to aim for the highest score across the board for only ONE cpu, then yes...a fresh install of Windows with all the necessary drivers with absolutely NO additional applications will give me the highest results I want. But to compare TWO different cpu, then it's a different ballgame, whether you run them both on fresh copies, or both on fully loaded Windows, as long as both cpu were being tested under the exact same environment from the exact same rig, then it shouldn't matter.
Personally...I prefer to see them being bench on a loaded environment, that's what I intend to use the system for...to run different apps and games, I didn't buy this processor solely for benchmarking purposes :D so in this case I think the results I get from benching under these kind of environment is THE ideal environment, what I see is what I'll get. ;)


That tiny little KX icon that you guys saw on my taskbar....it's a soundcard driver, try to google search for "KX project", it's an alternative soundcard drivers for my 5.1 soundblaster Live, it used up even less resources than the Creative POS drivers, if anybody wanted to blame the SD performance lost on that soundcard driver...then so be it!
:lol: :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben805

I can imagine that :D :D

Ok, as for testing environment, If I were to aim for the highest score across the board for only ONE cpu, then yes...a fresh install of Windows with all the necessary drivers with absolutely NO additional applications will give me the highest results I want. But to compare TWO different cpu, then it's a different ballgame, whether you run them both on fresh copies, or both on fully loaded Windows, as long as both cpu were being tested under the exact same environment from the exact same rig, then it shouldn't matter.
Personally...I prefer to see them being bench on a loaded environment, that's what I intend to use the system for...to run different apps and games, I didn't buy this processor solely for benchmarking purposes :D so in this case I think the results I get from benching under these kind of environment is THE ideal environment, what I see is what I'll get. ;)


That tiny little KX icon that you guys saw on my taskbar....it's a soundcard driver, try to google search for "KX project", it's an alternative soundcard drivers for my 5.1 soundblaster Live, it used up even less resources than the Creative POS drivers, if anybody wanted to blame the SD performance lost on that soundcard driver...then so be it!
:lol: :ROTF:

---

I know what you're saying, but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. The reason for not loading any additional apps into the OS isn't necessarily for stability purposes, but rather it makes comparing CPU A to CPU B easier if there aren't any external influences. And the entire purpose of this thread was to compare 2 different cpu's, correct? Say, for example, you have an anti-virus program loaded into your OS which scans your HD periodically for malicious files. Now imagine you run a bench such as Spi1m for comparison purposes. What do you think would happen if the AV prog happened to start scanning your HD during one bench, but not the other? By ridding yourself of these types of things, you're able to compare the two cpu's on a much more "pure" level. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

I know what you're saying, but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. The reason for not loading any additional apps into the OS isn't necessarily for stability purposes, but rather it makes comparing CPU A to CPU B easier if there aren't any external influences. And the entire purpose of this thread was to compare 2 different cpu's, correct? Say, for example, you have an anti-virus program loaded into your OS which scans your HD periodically for malicious files. Now imagine you run a bench such as Spi1m for comparison purposes. What do you think would happen if the AV prog happened to start scanning your HD during one bench, but not the other? By ridding yourself of these types of things, you're able to compare the two cpu's on a much more "pure" level. ;)

---

100% agree with you, if there is any Antivirus, AIM, Firewall, Nero, or any other applications being load up during startup from the registry or services, and if they're running in the background taking up resources, then they'll definitely affect the score. But I do not have any of those stuff installed...or running in the background, all I got were mostly benchmark programs and photoshop stuff on that particular ghost image well....except the KX soundcard drivers that load up everytime :D
By the way, the second part of my previous post regarding the KX icon was aiming toward nay-sayers only ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben805

100% agree with you, if there is any Antivirus, AIM, Firewall, Nero, or any other applications being load up during startup from the registry or services, and if they're running in the background taking up resources, then they'll definitely affect the score. But I do not have any of those stuff installed...or running in the background, all I got were mostly benchmark programs and photoshop stuff on that particular ghost image well....except the KX soundcard drivers that load up everytime :D
By the way, the second part of my previous post regarding the KX icon was aiming toward nay-sayers only ;)

---

I know :D I'm just saying it's easier to deal with everybody's questioning of your results if they have nothing to question i.e. "KX" thing. ;) Plus you can feel more confident in your own results if you don't have to think about if a prog is taking up any resources. You can say as often as you want that you know that none of your apps are taking up enough resources to affect the outcome, but as soon as somebody sees ANYTHING, they'll jump on it and question your results. Basically, a fresh install is as "pure" as it's gonna get and nobody will question that .......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

I know :D I'm just saying it's easier to deal with everybody's questioning of your results if they have nothing to question i.e. "KX" thing. ;) Plus you can feel more confident in your own results if you don't have to think about if a prog is taking up any resources. You can say as often as you want that you know that none of your apps are taking up enough resources to affect the outcome, but as soon as somebody sees ANYTHING, they'll jump on it and question your results. Basically, a fresh install is as "pure" as it's gonna get and nobody will question that .......

---

In that case....a rerun that is! There won't be any applications on it except all the necessary drivers, I will even disable the XP theme, this is going to be time consuming as hell but if this is what it takes....then so be it :D I'll add the sciencemark on the list....per agenda request. This time around I'm going to clock both of them at 280 x10, with the exact same vcore, from the one and only rig(exact same rig).....how does that sound? ;)

Now, to avoid any more unnecessary confusion or misunderstanding, this is exactly what I'm going to do:
1)Computer A using image B(Fresh XP and Drivers) with cpu SD
2)I'll reboot the machine after each benchmark is completed, that way every single benchmark will get a "fresh start".
3)Take out cpu SD from Computer A, install cpu Venice onto Computer A
4)Computer A will be format and load up with the exact same image B(Fresh XP and Drivers), now it's running on cpu Venice.
5)I'll reboot the machine after each benchmark is completed, that way every single benchmark will get a "fresh start".
6)face off completed! :D :D

I personally think its a BIOS issue with the DFI. We will know for sure if these same test are run with a SD and Venice on a MSI or Gigabyte.

Good job Ben :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben805

In that case....a rerun that is! There won't be any applications on it except all the necessary drivers, I will even disable the XP theme, this is going to be time consuming as hell but if this is what it takes....then so be it :D I'll add the sciencemark on the list....per agenda request. This time around I'm going to clock both of them at 280 x10, with the exact same vcore, from the one and only rig(exact same rig).....how does that sound? ;)

Now, to avoid any more unnecessary confusion or misunderstanding, this is exactly what I'm going to do:
1)Computer A using image B(Fresh XP and Drivers) with cpu SD
2)I'll reboot the machine after each benchmark is completed, that way every single benchmark will get a "fresh start".
3)Take out cpu SD from Computer A, install cpu Venice onto Computer A
4)Computer A will be format and load up with the exact same image B(Fresh XP and Drivers), now it's running on cpu Venice.
5)I'll reboot the machine after each benchmark is completed, that way every single benchmark will get a "fresh start".
6)face off completed! :D :D

---

Sounds perfect! Only suggestion is to not use so many nicknames, i.e. Computer A, Image B, etc. You'll be surprised how easily people get confused. Basically all you gotta say is "Hey, I'm running a benchmark comparison of my Diego and Venice using the same setup for both!" -that should do ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

"Hey, I'm running a benchmark comparison of my Diego and Venice using the same setup for both!" -that should do ;)

---

Thats what he did in the start but noone bothered to listen :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

Thats what he did in the start but noone bothered to listen :mad:

---

The difference, though, is this time he understands the methodology ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickedld9

Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire, Nathan from Legit reviews and I did some comparisons between my 4000+ San Diego @ 2.2GHz and 3500+ Venice. The San Diego was just a hair faster in all the tests, except in gaming where there was a slightly larger lead. I'll call him in a bit and have him send over the test data, but here is what I have on hand.

Comanche 4 640x480 Audio disabled:

Both At 2.2GHz (11x200)
3500+ Venice: 72.82 fps
4000+ San Diego: 76.46 fps

Both At 2.9GHz (10x290)
3500+ Venice: 95.46 fps
4000+ San Diego: 99.50 fps

All tests were run with identical memory settings with the same pieces of hardware. 2.2GHz tests were with TCCD @auto while 2.9GHz was OCZ VX 2-2-2-5.

---

And so someone asked why EVERYONE is justifying the SD's loss. The thing is it's supposed to win. Someone pointed out the memory timings were different on the benches. Yea. There you go. As I posted my link of the 3700 + vs the 3800+ (at stock speeds and the 3700+ winning), these are absolutely fair benchmarks.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&page=1&pp=25

Someone is just a bad benchmarker here. You would be fired from AMD labs =P

Ok, do we get it? SD wins clock for clock.

If you get the SD losing in every bench then:

1) maybe you have a bad setup
2) who knows, your chip is defective.

This is like showing me a benchmark of the P4 3.4 kicking the crap out of an FX-55 in every bench. Either you made a mistake, or something is really fishy, because that's not supposed to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben805

1- yes
2- interleave always disable
3- dynamic cycle always disable
4- always 1T, my 512LA is superpi 32m stable up to 337.5 @2.5-4-3-7 1T and can bench at 345 @2.5-4-3-7 1T.
5- those are always being set at 8x, 4x, and 16clks.
6- dynamic counter always disable
7- yes, only the drive strength, but with bios 414-3 the auto always default to weak...i believe it's 7..

---

2 - Enable it
5 - PlayWithIt, PlayWithIt, 256clks

Peace :toast:

Never mind

MR dmo580 and KILLorBE

Chill out...don't get bend out of shape for processor that you probably don't even own, if you're willing to put either YOUR Venice or San Diego to the test please do so because I would love to see what YOUR benchmarks look like so I can compare it with mine, I could careless about your uncle's best friend's nephew's teacher's son-inlaw's schoolmate's mother's friend's results, and I'm sorry that you do not like what you see so I apologize to you two that the result of my SD has disappointed you. But like I said....chill out, I'm half way through the test so we'll see how it goes, I'm going back to complete the rest of them now :D

ben, thanks for taking the time and effort to do the roundup.

i think most of the -ve comments is due to the different background image/sound driver icon which can be easily avoided...

id just plug in 1 cpu and do a fresh install of windows + drivers, and essential benchmark programs. defrag the hdd and ghost image the drive.

when you swap cpus all you have to do is load that image and you will have a desktop that looks the same for both benchmarks and an os with the same everything.

good luck...

Fragmented harddrive should affect both cpu so i dont think you can blame that.
Kx audio driver should affect both cpu, and if san diego loose that much performance with audio driver then i rather have Venice.
Still the numbers are odd, but its a good read =)

Very interesting results. Thanks for doing the tests!

Please do run the tests with your new memory, when you get them.

You can also start a new thread for those results. This thread has been crapped on all over already and the s/n is getting so bad it hurts my eyes.

regards,
halcyon

PS Some people here should really take a course or two in argumentation and reading skills. The world would be a happier place (them included) :)

The reruns started at 9:23pm and officially ended at 2:37am, wheeewww. I'm going to wrap up all the results and start a new thread for my new finding

Yer... nice testing, and I'm sure you put a lot of work into it, but the HTT's are different... a big difference there actually, that's why the Venice seems better. Push the HTT's to the same speed and then test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingYubbo

Yer... nice testing, and I'm sure you put a lot of work into it, but the HTT's are different... a big difference there actually, that's why the Venice seems better. Push the HTT's to the same speed and then test.

---

Quote from original poster "OK, now the rest of the benchmarks were all running at 318 x9 on both cpu, on the same setup and same everything." :rolleyes:

thins might be telling a granny how to such eggs, but can u try them both at something like 240x10.

This will ensure that they are stable, it wont be exciting results, but it should be fairer than having running tests where they are both on the edge of stability, or one is and one isnt.

I apologise if this has been done/said before.

Sorry but I have a sd and if I run 2850 mhz with awful ram timing I still get better results then that. Sorry ben but that test is utterly flawwed beyond believe. The extra cache in 01 destroys the 512. You have something totally diff in 2 diff comps and not even comparing them correctly. Nice idea but doing it right would be a good thing. Fresh install on same computer just swapping chips out. Then it would be alot more accurate. Dont go to 318 fsb? stick both cpus at same fsb. Sorry dont mean to sound like a ars but I know the cache makes a whole lot of diff.

When are we going to see some more San Diego vs Venice benches and reviews? I'm trying to figure out which one to get and i want to see some real world benches with primarily games to see if a 3700+ SD is really worth $125 over a 3200+ Venice. The main game i play is Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and the performance is heavily CPU dependent and i'm wondering if the extra 512MB of L2 cache will make a real difference.

Man is almost the same performance gain like that between 512M 939 cpu and FX 1m cache .

Quote:

---

to see if a 3700+ SD is really worth $125 over a 3200+ Venice.

---

u got 200Mhz stock + 512M cache . I think that for the moment 3700+ SD is best buy .
Think about it u got 1M cache , SSE and improved memory controller this is almost over FX caracteristics but the price is lower then half .