Processor question

Hi, I have a Venice 3500 AMD Athlon 64 2.2, I can buy a San diego 4000 2.4 for $65 is this worth the upgrade , will i see a big performance . I have the Venice OC to 2.5 now , i see some people have reached 2.9 with the san diego .

I wouldn’t spend money on a processor with that little improvement. If you want to make a difference spend a little more and get a dual core AMD processor. I am assuming you have a socket 939 motherboard. If you have a socket 754 motherboard then that option doesn’t exist.

Also, the sweet spots for the AMD processors are 2.0, 2.4, 2.8 ghz etc. This allows the memory to be clocked at its highest default settings by the on-chip memory controller. At 2.9 ghz the processor runs faster but the memory runs slightly slower so depending on the application running the processor at 2.8 ghz might make your PC faster overall.

The Venice is socket 939, i agree with UTR though, a Dual Core chip would give a much higher boost to performance.

Thanks for the input, i do allot of gaming and i don’t think dual core is for gaming quite yet. Also the 4000 San Diego has a 1MB cache.

The only difference between the 2 chips is L2 cache 512k vs 1Mb. If your expecting to see an noticeable difference between the 2 then I’m afraid you’ll be extremely disappointed.

I’d recommend you either light a cigarette with your $65 or sit on it until you’ve enough to go dual core. Whilst its true that games themselves don’t support dual core - they will soon enough not too mention your overall PC experience will be dramatically improved. Keep in mind that the majority of gaming performance is in the Video Card.

There isn’t much of a difference between 512kb or 1mb cache memory. If you add another $15 to your $65 budget you can get this dual core and over clock it:

Still though, I don’t think it is worth the expense for gaming. You might want to look into a better video card. It might be where your performance bottle neck is occurring.

There are a few games that recognise 2 or more cores:

Alan Wake
Half-Life 2: Episode 2
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
Supreme Commander
Unreal Engine 3

There is probably 1 or 2 more.

As already mentioned, it is you graphics card that is most responsible how a game performs on your computer, then CPU, then Ram.

Also if you upgraded your graphics card, there is a possibly that the CPU and or Ram will then be a bottleneck.

What I suggest is saving your money up until you can buy new motherboard, CPU, Ram and Graphics card, at the moment an Intel C2D system will provide the best performance for money spent, they also overclock extremely well. :wink:

Thanks for the replies.


to be fair the 4000+ is a lower speed binned athlon fx 57 if u look on the chip its self it has the same code at the beginning :wink: cept with a C i think it is at the end :slight_smile: aint seen a 4000+ well the later ones do no less then 2.7 on decent air max i seen on air is 3 ghz

If you can find one cheap enough then get yourself a FX55 or a FX57 or you
could go dual core with the FX60. I’m running a FX55 in my system right now
and it does every thing I need it to do with a slight OC @ 2.8GHz or I can just
crank it up to 3-3.2GHz and get even more out of it when needed but as I said
before 2.8GHz is a good speed for it. I’ll have to say even at stock speed 2.6GHz
it still does every thing I need it to do. :iagree:

I would avoid the FX-60, that thing is a beast to cool and overclocking higher than ~2.8 is near impossible without water and extreme voltage, the only saving grace is that if you get a good deal on one like I did, they hold their value much better than x2s and opterons

u must have one if bad heatspreader contact cos my fx 60 is clocks @ 3 Ghz constantly and temps dont go above 48*c full load :slight_smile:

yeah probably, I’d love to pop the top and see what she could do, but I’m planning on selling it in ~6mos and either getting a phenom or if they suck then I’ll switch teams and go C2D