San Diego and Venice comparison at same clock speed

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 .