Which core?

I'm in the market for an AMD 64 3500 and am all confused about which core to pick. I've seen Winchester ($320 - Retail), Claw Hammer ($232 - Retail), Venice ($222 - Retail) and Newcastle ($270 - OEM) cores. I don't plan on doing any overclocking, so which one should I get? Is there really a difference between them to justify a $100 swing??

 

I would still say the venice even if your not going ot oc as it still runs pretty cool and stable. The winnie is also another great choice so i guess its a matter of how deep your wallet is

 

Well, I can swing the $320 for a Winchester, but is it REALLY worth it for someone like me? I mean I don't really game or anything like that, but I do do a lot of video projects.

 

Then I would just say get the venice. And is it just me or did newegg just drop all winchesters as i cant find any on their site?

 

Anything over $270 for a 3500 seems a little too steep. I just bought a San Diego 3700 for $289. Aren't the Venice cores the ones with the 'fixed' memory controller, allowing all 4 dimms to be filled?

I can't find any Winnies on Newegg either

P. S. In another thread, I mentioned that I'd never upgrade to 939 from my 754 3400. That was before my 2 gigs of RAM upgrade wouldn't work - I then decided 939 would be the best option since both sticks worked, but not in my limited 754 board

 

I guess I'll stick with a Venice, that way I can get a bigger hdd too

I didn't see any Winchesters there, I found them over at ZipZoomFly

 

The venice is a much better core you all realize...

 

Dad, just grab whichever is the cheapest, you might well find the newcastle cores are the cheapest of the lot, if you can track one down...
The only thing Venice has going for it which you might need/use is the addition of SSE3 support

 

Venice - Has SSE3.

 

Venice!

 

toledo

 

go with the cheapest or get a 3700+ sandiego

 

Has everyone on bit-tech forgotten how the AMD cores rank next to each other?

The Venice core has a very slight performance improvement over the Newcastle core thanks to improvements in the memory controller, SSE 3, and various other adjustments. Why on earth would you buy a more expensive core that isnt as good?

San Diego is the 1 meg L2 cache version of Venice, Manchester = 2x Venices, and Toledo = 2x San Diegos.

 

I never paid much attention to how they rank, that's why I'm asking opinions

 

Aye Roto is right.
Venice or San Diego.

 

90nm Cheesecake - definitely go for a Venice or San Diego. They perform better, consume less power, and run cooler than any of the older cores.

 

Well, the Winchesters are 90nm as well, but SSE3 would be worth the upgrade to Venice, imo. Plus, the Venice/San Diego cored processors overclock much better than current Winchesters, if you bother with that.

 

Venice > Winchester > Newcastle > Clawhammer, IIRC. In any case, definately Venice. It's the newest, most effecient, has more instructions, overclocks best, runs coolest, has most of the bugs ironed out of the memory controller (notably the DDR333/4 stick thing, IIRC), and is least expensive to boot.

 

Claw's are better than newcastles, but otherwise right.

Some people seem not to be reading Dad's requirements... He didnt want the cpu to overclock, was merely asking if it was worth spending the extra to get the most expensive... No its not worth the extra $100 since venice is the best of that bunch.

I challenge someone (without running a cpu id program or whatever) to tell the difference in speed/performance between a venice and a newcastle..... Its minute, the only major + is the use of SSE3...

 

You should end up a touch faster in gaming, the main difference though is just lower temperatures when all is said and done (and more OCing, but that's not part of this thread)