Instead of whining etc you should at least thank him for making such effort etc...
ben805: nice job :)
Printable View
Instead of whining etc you should at least thank him for making such effort etc...
ben805: nice job :)
exactly. good work and effort ben805 :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by TEDY
Don't worry, please go ahead and run it. If venice comes really close with 1024atoms, then I will let you know my opinion, not BS'ing or blamming you. I just need a serious clarification here.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben805
This is scary. I have 3700+ on the way, should be here in 2hours from now.
The CPU will be used mainly for running a Moleclar Dynamics simulation project. If the extra 512Kb doesn't make any difference, then I'm not going to open the CPU in the first instance. Please your result is very important to me.
The 512KB cache on venice might have better latency that helps it compesate for the less cache. But only when you run sciencemark with 1024 atoms in Mol. Dyn. that I can verify this issue. Please run it and post result.
that looks about right
I hope your desktop wallpapers and icons going to looks the same, and the system clock better make some sense, otherwise certain people probably would disregard your comparison. ;) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by wickedld9
Problem with this is that Venice and SD are identical save cache amount.
There is no physical reason for it to perform worse, and this is the only documented case where it has done so.
If this pops up more and more, I'll give it more attention than 'freak occurance'.
I don't believe this to be true. I do believe that the Venice has about 2/3 the transistors of the San Diego, making it a (slightly)different chip. I do not believe that all of those transistors can go solely to the extra cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallowed
And if thats true, then woudnt the 3500+ SD chip w/512MB cache(the other 512 crippled for one reason or another) just be a Venice?
Again, I could be wrong and feel more than free to correct me if I am, but I dont think they are the EXACT same core with different cache.
I really hope that this is a freak occurence. I got caught up in the hype of these new chips and rushed out to get the 3700+ SD. Now I'm wishing that I had waited a little bit more and done some more research. It looks like getting a 3200+ Venice and a GeForce 6800Ultra would definately have been a better way to go than a 3700+ SD and a GeForce 6800GT OC, which is what I just purchased. The stuff did come in on Monday, so I do have time to RMA if I want to. What do you guys suggest?
Is a 3200+ Venice + GeForce 6800Ultra > 3700+ San Diego + GeForce 6800GT OC ???
first off, welcome to XS ao!!! :toast: good to have you here.
as for your setup, if its for gaming I do believe that the Venice/Ultra combo would yield the greatest FPS in games(probably mostly due to the Ultra). If you have the time, hold on to your stuff for a few days until we can get this all sorted out and draw a reasonable conclusion beyond this single test.
I encourage everyone with both venice and sd's to run similar comparison tests. Let's find out once and for all what the crap is going on here!
Thanks for the welcome. I've actually been browsing these forums for a while now, just never got around to posting :p: . I think I'm probably just second guessing my purchase decisions to much. I mean, I installed WinXP in like 8 minutes at stock settings, so I can't complain too much about that :D . I'm guessing that if I can get this chip up to 2.8ghz on air, it will be well worth the cost. Plus, the extra L2 cache should help some when multitasking right?Quote:
Originally Posted by trakslacker
Right but my initial point was they may be the SAME TYPE, but you are not testing the CPU's in the SAME BOARD (obviously due to background differences, which means you are running different hard drives, which means possible software differences... etc...)Quote:
Originally Posted by ben805
Your test is fundamentally flawed. It is a good starting point, but you have to keep all your variables under control.
Edit: I apologize for posting before I read the whole thread, but I like to jump the gun like that. I do see that you ended up using the same image. Don't take critiscism or me doing a pre-emptive post personally. :toast: For the test.
Don't RMA your SD, it could be some bugs that can be fix with BIOS updates or software patches, but IF you prefer to stick with air/water cooling...then I'd say the Venice is a better option over SD simply because the Venice runs MUCH cooler under load, summer heat is kicking in so take that into consideration. Performance wise, both chips are kinda close anyway...regardless who win or lose!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ao`
sigghhhh.... let me tell you what, I'm throwing in the white towel...you win, and you're right, I don't know jack about overclocking and have no clue as to how should I run a fair test....and I have no place to run any comparison either, so I give up....have fun with your San Diego or whatever you're going to get and I wish you luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Mag
agenda2005, you see what I mean? I'll be wasting my time to do any additional benchmarks between these two processors so I'm not even going to bother, the SD probably would and should beat the crap out of the Venice so I won't waste my time to run any more test. The San Diego SHOULD outperform the Venice, that is all I have to say...
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Mag
Seriously man what the HELL? Read the damn thread before being the 50th person to say this and be dead wrong. Here is a quote from Ben on page 3, and take note of the bolded portion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben805
There is ONE mobo in ONE case with ONE CPU socket and he is pulling out and remounting ONE heatsink onto two CPUs. This thread is half full of pointless and misleading posts from people who cant bother to read the thread before spouting off why his tests are wrong or why the SD shouldnt lose.
Shut your proverbial noise holes and read before posting please!!!
hmmmmmm. i started viewing this thread as a person hoping to find a little guidance on which AMD64 to buy to go in my new rig. and ive finished viewing the thread as a very confused and bewildered individual with little or no clue what to do.
so many different viewpoints and information being put forward by everyone, shrouded in confusion and speculation. how hard can it be to pick ur chip?
Sorry bro, didn't realize you missed your meds today. If you are going to have an aneurism over something simple I am glad your the one with hypertension.
Not all too hard, as ben has mentioned and has been detailed numerous time before the SD's run very hot, so if your on air venice is better option mainly due to heat rembmer summers coming and all those 2.8-2.9 SD's will fall on their asses when the heat kicks on (if your on air that is). Also theres the point about price if your not loaded then the venice again is the better option as it competes up there with the SD's (perhaps this review was freak, perhaps it was not point is it shows us a nice comparison from an actual user not somoene getting a free chip from AMD). If you are the type to run loads of apps at once the SD may be a benifit obviously due to the cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by etherealrhythm
To sum up:
Venice pros: Clocks same as SD, cooler than SD clock for clock, at least here outperforms the SD, PRICE!!
Venice Cons: High voltages to reach high clocks, lacking extra cache so may experience slight slow down with numerous apps open at once.
SD pros: Extra cache, should perform better when loads of apps open, doesnt require huge volts.
SD cons: Hot, pricey, at least here is slower than venice at the higher clocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Mag
But assuming your pervious post was not a joke you do come of as quite the idiot, but if it was a joke at how stupid others in this thread are then... :stick: not all to funny really.
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 -
1) Scrap all your prior results and pretend that they never existed.
2) Reinstall your OS with one of the cpu's in. Make sure to note the order in which you install the drivers and progs. Run every benchmrk you can think of or have time for because it's easier to do it now than to have to re-install the cpu later and have your testing methodology questioned.
3) Install the other cpu and do a fresh install of the same os - doing everything exactly the same as your other install. Bench it and then post here.
4) Post your conclusions and if you hear people telling you that "this setting is off" or "a different prog was running in the background", simply make the proper adjustment to your current setup and then run the bench again and you should have an acceptable result.
Writing a review wasn't as easy as you thought, eh ;) ?
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.
how bout comparing the 2 chips at stock speeds, not overclocked speeds. sounds like you got a SD that doesn't like air cooling, it might do better under phase. the differences in results you're seeing aren't all that huge. even though the 2 chips are running at the same speed, you're probably over the sweet spot oc for your particularly SD. when you're past the sweet spot, you'll get worse scores on benches before you start getting errors. on the other hand, your brother's venice is probably right in it's sweet spot. this seems especially true since your load temps on the SD are pretty high for air cooling. back off the oc to a point that both cpu's can handle and compare it then.
haha j-mag. or not.
Do you manually enter the cache amount in the registry? Could it be possible that some kind of BIOS/OS compatability issue is causing windows to only detect 512KB on the chip? It has happened before. The CPU test showing the San Diego getting 360's versus 320's could be an indication of such a problem. Possibly its bypassing windows settings. I'd not run at stock speeds because they are different but I would run the exact same frequency. Drop both down to 2.2 or 2.4Ghz with stock voltage and identical settings.
Eric
:owned:Quote:
Originally Posted by qui
nuff' said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
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. ;)