Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by qui
then is it logical to have 3500+ in newcastle, winchester, and claw hammer with same frequency and same cache? but all 3 are being sold currently
just because it is san diego doesn't mean it's 1mb cache. We've been through this already. Read the thread ppl
not 100% sure what 3500+ sandy is going to be but it'll prob be 512kb cache. And yes, I would pick 3500+ sandy over venice any day
This information I got from a dutch side:
Dit zijn de socket 939 cpus die zeker (deze maand)uitkomen:
AMD Sempron 3200+ S939 90nm Palermo @?.? Ghz 256k Single channel
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ S939 90nm Venice (BP) @1.8 Ghz 512k
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ S939 90nm Venice (BP) @2.0 Ghz 512k
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ S939 90nm Venice (BP) @2.2 Ghz 512k
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ S939 90nm Venice (BN) @2.2 Ghz 512k
Dit is dus een afgekeurde San Diego(3700+) met 512kb
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ S939 90nm Venice (BP) @2.4 Ghz 512k
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ S939 90nm San Diego (BN) @2.2 Ghz 1M
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ S939 90nm San Diego (BN) @2.4 Ghz 1M
AMD Athlon 64 FX55 S939 90nm San Diego (BN) @2.6 Ghz 1M
Geplant voor Juni en Juli:
AMD Athlon 64 4200+ S939 90nm San Diego (BN) @2.6 Ghz 1M Komt Juli
AMD Athlon 64 FX57 S939 90nm San Diego (BN) @2.8 Ghz 1M Komt Juli
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ S939 90nm Toledo(dualcore)@ 1.8 Ghz 512k x 2 Komt in Juni
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ S939 90nm Toledo(dualcore)@ 2.0 Ghz 512k x 2 Komt in Juni
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ S939 90nm Toledo(dualcore)@ 2.2 Ghz 512k x 2 Komt in Juni
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ S939 90nm Toledo(dualcore)@ 2.4 Ghz 512k x 2 Komt in Juni
I discovered two faults and that are:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ S939 90nm Toledo(dualcore)@ 2.0 Ghz 1M x 2
and
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ S939 90nm Toledo(dualcore)@ 2.4 Ghz 1M x 2
As you can see there are two Venice 3500+ with 512k, only one is a San Diego that is not good enough to be a 3700+.
Also in Holland is a shop that start selling Venice 3800+ next week, but I wait till there are San Diego's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the farmer
i think i remember reading in a thread saying a 3500+ san diego with a crippled 1MB L2 cache, so theoretically it will only have 512K l2 cache. lets hope someone will get lucky and get a full 1MB l2 cache 3500+ diego.
It will not run at the same clock as the 3200 venice. It will run 2.2ghz just like the other 4 3500's and have 512k L2 cache. It is the next generation "Clawcastle", I guess you could call it "SanVenice" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by qui
Exact same chip as the 3700+ with half of the L2 cache crippled
And don't expect these to show up too soon. AMD will see how many 4000's and 3700's they can sell in the inital push. Then once the more expensive chips are in abundant supply, and their production capacity is greater than the sales volume of the 3700's and 4000's they will cripple the excess stock and introduce the 3500's
Quote:
Originally Posted by qui
Take a look at this picture of the 3500+ San Diego.
http://akiba.ascii24.com/akiba/news/...ages770990.jpg
Notice the product code. ADA3500DAA4BN. If that was a 1MB L2 it would read ADA3500DAA5BN. Believe me I'd love to see a 3500+ with a 1MB L2 but from the way things looks there isn't one.
personally I like Vendiego better. ;)
As far as it being logical or not, take that up with AMD!
ROFL!!! Sounds like a mis pronounced Spanish curse word :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by trakslacker
Quote:
Originally Posted by koyanisquatsi
hrmm i thought there are only 2 revisions E3 and E4.
E3 = Venice
E4 = San Diego
E5 = ? never heard of an E5 revision. anyone know?
The 3700 San Diego is suppose to be showing up the same time as the Venice at Monarch which is currently the 29th. I would assume that would be the same for the other San Diegos. I just changed my 3500 Venice order to a 3700 San Diego..
Noone said anything about E5 revision. you know what forget it. not worth the effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by dng29
There is no rev. E5. The "5" is the part of the product code that defines L2 cacheQuote:
Originally Posted by dng29
1=64k
2=128k
3=256k
4=512k
5=1024k
For those of you who seem confused... :D
Its amazing how much mis information there is going around such as the 3500+ Diego having 1mb. It *had* 1mb but some of the cache is defective so amd disabled it rather than throwing the cpu in the bin :rolleyes: also I hear people say all the time the 3700+ diego has a 12x multi. I think they got the 3700+ s754 clawhammer mixed up. I think theres going to be quite a few mad people when they find out their 3500+ diego is only 512k cache when the 3700+ could be had for less than $100 more.
OK ! STOPS ! ya guys please stops guessing, it make everyone get confuse, here is this the specs of all new release
3500+Venice 512 L2-cache 2.2Ghz (11x200)
3500+Sandiego 1Mb L2-cache 2.0Ghz (10x200)
3800+Venice 512 L2-cache 2.4Ghz (12x200)
3700+Sandiego 1Mb L2-cache 2.2Ghz (11x200)
4000+Sandiego 1Mb L2-cache 2.4Ghz (12x200)
:stick: that's it ! for rightnow, and that's all for later :woot:
:p: muhahaha so much confusion :slap:
If the 3500+ has 512K cache, then the 3500+ venice will clock higher.
However, afaik, San Diegos were just 1MB Venices, according to the roadmap, so a 512k San Diego doesnt make much sense, if it's a 90nm rev E 512K chip, then its a Venice, if its a 90nm rev E 1MB chip, its a San Diego, simple as that. :rolleyes:
Perkam
You should take your advice for yourself :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDfan
Why are we all arguing semantics.
If it has 1MB L2 cache it's a Diego
if it has 512K L2 cache it's a Venice
If it had 1MB L2 cache but part of it failed and now only has 512k L2 cache it's a Venice.
According to AMD's official road map that I posted above the only San Diego cores are 3700+ and 4000+
There is a BN E4 3500+ but it has 512MB cache and they call it Venice
WRONG the 3500+ San Diego only has 512K L2 Cache!!! damn lern how to read a box code will ya pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by AMDfan
and 2.0 instead of 2.2? if so then why would anyone buy it over the venice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fzero
Quote:
Originally Posted by S0nic
I think it's 2.2ghz as well. the only advantage being it's ssoi
OMG its the same thing venice and san diego are the same thing except the san diego has 1mb L2 cache and people will buy them why the hell would any one buy the clawhammer 3500+ it only has 512k L@ cache just like the newcastle and wichester they are just re binned chips like the San Diego 3500 they are re binned 3700+ and up cpus with half the cache either failed or disabled can we change this subject now if you dont beleive me that there is one CALL AMD
don't tell people are wrong instead you can prove the opposite :stick: :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fzero
I have just talk to my friend who is in Japan, and I have also call and get to talked to an AMD enployor, and I checked all-over the websites, and get all information about thoses new released, so please stops acting like smart guy, but read and learns, :fact: Thank you ! :)
San Diego Core: Code "BN"
Athlon 64 4000+ 939 1MB L2 2.4 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $549
Athlon 64 3700+ 939 1MB L2 2.2 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $327
Athlon 64 3500+ 939 1MB L2 2.0 GHz "BN" (Rev E) $270
Venice Core: Code "BP"
Athlon 64 4000+ 939 512k L2 2.6 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $540
Athlon 64 3800+ 939 512k L2 2.4 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $389
Athlon 64 3500+ 939 512k L2 2.2 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $272
Athlon 64 3200+ 939 512k L2 2.0 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $199
Athlon 64 3000+ 939 512k L2 1.8 GHz "BP" (Rev E) $149