3500+ San diego

Snowman89 · 07-03-2005, 01:40 AM

yesterday i found a 3500+ San diego with 512 cache, is it ust a typo or what is the diffrent between that and a 3500+ venice?

Moonman · 07-03-2005, 01:50 AM

There isn't san diego with 512kb L2 cache. That 3500+ must be a venice core.

Snowman89 · 07-03-2005, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonman

There isn't san diego with 512kb L2 cache. That 3500+ must be a venice core.

thats the wierd thing, they also lists the 3500+ venice, winchester and 0,13 cores, the san diego 3500+ is also around 20 usd expensiver than the 3500+ venice

Snowman89 · 07-03-2005, 02:30 AM

i did som googling and it seems like there is a 3500+ san diego and that it ocs great, but theres no sure information about if they have 512kb or 1mb cache

dng29 · 07-03-2005, 05:48 AM

i hope this thing oc well. i saw azcomputer listing it for 269$. that's really cheap for a san diego core. i wanted this chip bad when the venice and san diego got released. this 3500 san diego just takes forever to come out.

dng29 · 07-03-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman89

i did som googling and it seems like there is a 3500+ san diego and that it ocs great, but theres no sure information about if they have 512kb or 1mb cache

how well does it oc? i don't think many people got this chip yet. it's just starting to show up online. i'm very tempted to get 1 myself. cheapest i saw is 268$ at pc4uhardware.com.

mcnbns · 07-03-2005, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dng29

i hope this thing oc well. i saw azcomputer listing it for 269$. that's really cheap for a san diego core. i wanted this chip bad when the venice and san diego got released. this 3500 san diego just takes forever to come out.

So AMD is coming out with a 3500+ San Diego now? Linkage please.

dng29 · 07-03-2005, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnbns

So AMD is coming out with a 3500+ San Diego now? Linkage please.

do you mean linkage for online vendor or linkage from amd.com? do a froogle search. there are lots of online vendors, but most of them don't have it in stock. only a few got them.

kryptobs2000 · 07-03-2005, 07:00 AM

It's just 3700+'s or 4000+'s with failed cache. They should overclock about the same as a venice, since really all a diego is is a venice with more cache. I havn't seen in general any diego's or venices clocking higher or lower than the other.

MaxxxRacer · 07-03-2005, 07:01 AM

seems suspect at best.

Benny Lodewijk · 07-03-2005, 07:03 AM

I found it here

Gamer · 07-03-2005, 07:08 AM

ATHLON 64 3500+, 2.0GHz, 64-bit, 1MB Cache ?

looks like 1024kb cache not ?

HousERaT · 07-03-2005, 01:20 PM

looks like a misprint or a scam.

ghidon · 07-03-2005, 08:07 PM

snowman, could you post a cpuz screen ?

babyelf · 07-03-2005, 08:21 PM

they planned to release a 512kb 3500+ san diego.. but i've never heard of anyone getting it until now .. a cpuz screenie will be great

Snowman89 · 07-03-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghidon

snowman, could you post a cpuz screen ?

i dont have it, i ust found it on a store here in sweden and im thinking of buying it, do you think it will be 512 or 1mb cache?
some say 512 and some 1

EclectiK · 07-03-2005, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman89

i dont have it, i ust found it on a store here in sweden and im thinking of buying it, do you think it will be 512 or 1mb cache?
some say 512 and some 1

Some people says the 3500+ is a 3700+ running @ 2ghz, and some others says it's a 3500+ venice with the san diego core, so it's exactly the same except the core name.

The only OPN I was able to read let me think it's a 512kb. But well, if this 3500+ is 1mb, it will be my next chip for sure, before I get my 4400+

ECK

Snowman89 · 07-04-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EclectiK

Some people says the 3500+ is a 3700+ running @ 2ghz, and some others says it's a 3500+ venice with the san diego core, so it's exactly the same except the core name.

The only OPN I was able to read let me think it's a 512kb. But well, if this 3500+ is 1mb, it will be my next chip for sure, before I get my 4400+

ECK

it should be 1mb, atleast i think so, dont see any other reason to release another 3500+ 0.09 512kb cache when there is already 3 others and this one is the most expensivest

Quazi · 07-04-2005, 01:31 AM

I am not sure you guys mean when you say overclocks well. Well I do, and I don't. But I have a 3500+ Winchester that will do 2.585 on air. stable. .4GHz oc on any of these AMD 64 cpu's with air cooling is a good oc, isn't it?

Snowman89 · 07-04-2005, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quazi

I am not sure you guys mean when you say overclocks well. Well I do, and I don't. But I have a 3500+ Winchester that will do 2.585 on air. stable. .4GHz oc on any of these AMD 64 cpu's with air cooling is a good oc, isn't it?

thats you opinion, mine is that it can reach in the 2.6+ area IF it has 1mb cache

TheMeatFrog · 07-04-2005, 01:56 AM

My guess is it has 512M so you ask why pick the SD 3500 over the venice? Easy, a better mem controller!

I don't think the SDs are just Venice cores with extra cache. I think they are just a better designed chip all around.

kryptobs2000 · 07-04-2005, 02:11 AM

Diego's have better memory controllers?

TheMeatFrog · 07-04-2005, 03:44 AM

As a whole I say yes

EclectiK · 07-04-2005, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman89

it should be 1mb, atleast i think so, dont see any other reason to release another 3500+ 0.09 512kb cache when there is already 3 others and this one is the most expensivest

Quote:

Originally Posted by kryptobs2000

Diego's have better memory controllers?

This could be the only reasons for them to sell it @ a different price.