AMD 3800+ or 4000+

[backseatgunner]

Can someone tell me which one of these is the better value and is the extra 512kb of L2 cache worth an extra hundred dollars. Also, if someone could give me the lowdown on integrated into chip vs 1Gz FSB it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[joshj]

The best value is the 3800. I think the 3200 is the best value, and from there up it is a little less bang for the buck for each one.

 

[r53s]

The 3800+ Venice core runs cool at 1.4v...

 

[The_Other_One]

I have a 4000 and I'm VERY pleased with it, but I've never used a 3800 so I can't tell you how they differ.

 

[Praetor]

1. Have a look at the CPU101
2. Financially theres not much reason to go with the 4000 especially with the performance-delta/cost-delta. There are reasons to go with the 4000 model but usually thats limited to people deciding between FX and non-FX. The extra 512K isnt going to make a world of difference ... and if you want to close the performance gap, overclocking and extra 200MHz isnt too hard regardless of the core Having used both processors, i can fairly comfortably say, for most people, they wont regret buying the cheaper processor.

 

[backseatgunner]

Which one of those processors would be more overclocking friendly?

 

[ripken2004]

if the 4000 is san diego, which i think it is b/c ur talking about 1mb of cache, then definetly get it

 

[Praetor]

Which one of those processors would be more overclocking friendly?

Depends on the core. Venice and Winchester are more OC friendly than Newcastle and Hammers

if the 4000 is san diego, which i think it is b/c ur talking about 1mb of cache, then definetly get it

1MB doesnt make it San Diego. Most 4000s are 'hammer based

 

[Praetor]

but whichever you get you better get some good fans, cause my processor (from BIOS) runs at around 57 to 59 celcius. So im thinking of getting some better fans!

Not all cores run as hot as what you've got running there