3000+ venice of 3500+ venice?

**Archangel** · 08-11-2005, 10:38 PM

well, the question might have been answered somewhere already, but, whats the difference between these 2 prosessord except the higher clock frequentie?
i mean, considering the price difference, there must be one..
or is the 3500+ just an overclocked version of the 3000+ ?

**apj101** · 08-11-2005, 10:52 PM

Quote:

well, the question might have been answered somewhere already, but, whats the difference between these 2 prosessord except the higher clock frequentie?

what more difference do you need from 2 processors in the same family/class ?

[-0MEGA-] · 08-11-2005, 10:52 PM

i was wondeirng the same thing, what would be better to get. Everyone said the 3000+ since its exactly the same as the other, just higher frequency.

Sophocles · 08-12-2005, 02:02 AM

The 3000 will place a greater strain on your memory and front side bus than the 3500 will. You can only lower the multipliers on either but you can't raise them. Most if not all of the over clocks that have exceeded 2.6 GHZ using standard cooling have been achieved using the 3500+.

**Praetor** · 08-12-2005, 03:33 AM

Quote:

i mean, considering the price difference, there must be one..
or is the 3500+ just an overclocked version of the 3000+ ?

1. Its prolly more accurate to say the 3000 is an underclocked 3500
2. You cant OC the 3000 in the same way AMD did.

r53s · 08-12-2005, 04:55 PM

And remember that AMD just set it at a higher speed (it's not exactly the same as overclocking) an then get it into a series of stressful tests to validate its warranty. The processors that fails to work flawlessly at 3500, are set to a lower speed, so 3500s are tough processors.
To me it's a big difference...

**jancz3rt** · 08-12-2005, 05:37 PM

I am not entirely sure about that. Sometimes manufacturers downgrade their chips as to cater for all segments of the market. Remember that the manufacturing costs for the A64s for example are very close to same. However, the pricing strategies have to reflect the demands of the market. Hence you see downgraded versions of the processors.

JAN

**Cromewell** · 08-12-2005, 06:01 PM

It's not an inaccurate statement though. They aren't fabbed as 3500+ or 3000+, they are labelled based on the need and stable operating @ stock conditions.

**Praetor** · 08-14-2005, 04:47 AM

Quote:

And remember that AMD just set it at a higher speed

Quote:

The processors that fails to work flawlessly at 3500, are set to a lower speed,

A technical contradiction?

Quote:

that the manufacturing costs for the A64s for example are very close to same

Not quite. While to produce a generic chip costs the same .. you may only get one chip for every ten that can run at 2.6Ghz rather than 2.4Ghz -- but you had to make 11 chips in order to find that out ... so indirectly, it costs more to make a higher clocked chip

**apj101** · 08-14-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Not quite. While to produce a generic chip costs the same .. you may only get one chip for every ten that can run at 2.6Ghz rather than 2.4Ghz -- but you had to make 11 chips in order to find that out ... so indirectly, it costs more to make a higher clocked chip

we'll that all depends on whether you can sell all the chips clocked at 2.4, if you cant then the write down expense will increase cost per chip. If you can then the per unit cost for all chips is the same.
But you'll have to sell the 2.4 chips for less cutting into your margin.

08-11-2005, 10:38 PM	#1 (permalink)
Archangel Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Netherlands Age: 21 Posts: 8,068	3000+ venice of 3500+ venice? well, the question might have been answered somewhere already, but, whats the difference between these 2 prosessord except the higher clock frequentie? i mean, considering the price difference, there must be one.. or is the 3500+ just an overclocked version of the 3000+ ? __________________ Newton is dead, Einstein is dead, I don't feel very well either Xfire - Mirrari Intel Q6600 ( @3.6GHz) Asus Triton 79 Amazing 549/3200 4x 1Gb Corsair XMS2 DDR800 Asus Maximus Formula Asus & Sapphire HD3870 512Mb ( 850/1180 ) Corsair HX620W PSU

08-12-2005, 05:37 PM	#7 (permalink)
jancz3rt Moderator - F@H Guru Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Czech Republic Age: 23 Posts: 4,009	Ahmmww I am not entirely sure about that. Sometimes manufacturers downgrade their chips as to cater for all segments of the market. Remember that the manufacturing costs for the A64s for example are very close to same. However, the pricing strategies have to reflect the demands of the market. Hence you see downgraded versions of the processors. JAN __________________ A64 3700+ @ 2.65Ghz ::: 7300GT @ 600/1500 ::: 2GB RAM @ 440Mhz www.CZ3RT.com ::: FOLDING FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND ::: F@H Team 44358

08-12-2005, 06:01 PM	#8 (permalink)
Cromewell Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Canada Age: 25 Posts: 10,206	It's not an inaccurate statement though. They aren't fabbed as 3500+ or 3000+, they are labelled based on the need and stable operating @ stock conditions. __________________ You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here. I must plug a couple comics because they are good :D: www.ctrlaltdel-online.com www.userfriendly.org

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-11-2005, 10:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 20 Posts: 27,082	i was wondeirng the same thing, what would be better to get. Everyone said the 3000+ since its exactly the same as the other, just higher frequency.

08-12-2005, 02:02 AM	#4 (permalink)
Sophocles VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 165	The 3000 will place a greater strain on your memory and front side bus than the 3500 will. You can only lower the multipliers on either but you can't raise them. Most if not all of the over clocks that have exceeded 2.6 GHZ using standard cooling have been achieved using the 3500+.

08-12-2005, 04:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
r53s Silver Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 130	And remember that AMD just set it at a higher speed (it's not exactly the same as overclocking) an then get it into a series of stressful tests to validate its warranty. The processors that fails to work flawlessly at 3500, are set to a lower speed, so 3500s are tough processors. To me it's a big difference...