AMD64 3700+ San Diego S939 2.2GHz

Rob Williams · 09-20-2005, 08:21 PM

Need a CPU and want the best bang for your buck? Today, we are taking a look at the 3700+ San Diego core AMD64. It rolls in at a 2.2GHz stock speed and is also equipped with 1MB L2 Cache. The chip costs around $275US, but does does it give enough extra performance to warrent the extra money over a Venice core?

After checking out the review here, please feel free to discuss it here! Questions, comments and suggestions are welcomed, and you do not need to register to post.

Regeneration · 09-20-2005, 11:03 PM

Nice review dude.
AMD is the best!

Greg King · 09-21-2005, 02:09 AM

Rob did quite a bit as well but thank you. I love this proc. I appreciate your kind words.

And I agree....AMD is tops!

10-20-2005, 12:19 AM

I reckon that extra L2 cache will come in handy as the 64 software progresses and becomes more developed-mainstream, but hey, by then 1000kb of L2 will be stock and things will be looking even better,,lol.

And so on,,the future looks good

Looking forward to the AMD vs INTEL, if Intel accepts.

AMD FAN<

Rob Williams · 10-20-2005, 11:26 AM

Well, since AMD outsold Intel in the last little bit, it looks like we are winning

11-07-2005, 11:08 PM

Having that 3700+ Sandy inside your rig is a wise choice. OCing to the level of the FX-55 for less dollars and getting that performance is really great. I'm moving from my ol' reliable Socket-A to 939 and definitively that Sandy is my choice.

Greetings.

Rob Williams · 11-08-2005, 12:20 AM

Agent, I agree that the 3700+ is a damn sweet choice. You *may* want to consider an Opteron 144 or 146 in your decision though. They also have 1MB of Cache, and are very common to overclock past 3.0GHz stable on air or water.

Either way, they both are kick ass chips.

12-17-2005, 07:49 AM

I would have liked to see how this chip compares with the 3800+ Venice and the gaming framerate tests seem to have been left out. Nonetheless, a good concise review.

Greg King · 12-18-2005, 12:00 AM

The 3800+ is a full 200 MHz faster than the 3700+.

Video cards play a larger role in frame rates than the CPU, thats why I didnt include them. I did however include bench results from benchmarks that give an accurate reading on the CPU's power.

12-18-2005, 11:02 AM

You have a point, but I have read on many forums that overclocked the 3700+ with its 1MB cache competes very well with the 3800+. I think many people like me, trying to decide between these two cpus would benefit from a tested performance comparison.

Greg King · 12-18-2005, 05:14 PM

Yes, I would like to see a comparison as well. The Venice and San Diego cores are both great. Since that review, I have been able to get up to 2.9 GHz so I am impressed with the results of this core (it's amazing what a nice PSU will do for you.) If you are torn between the two chips, by all means, get the cheaper of the two as the extra 512 of L2 doesnt make that much differance.

04-12-2006, 01:12 PM

just buy the 3700 its cheeper i cant wait to get mine fired up di you have watercooling when you overclocked it or did you just have heatsink and fan?

Greg King · 04-12-2006, 01:54 PM

When I got up to 2.9 GHz, I was on air. I also had the window open and it was winter so I was getting really cheap, high performance cooling out of a Thermaltake Blue Orb II.

08-13-2006, 02:12 PM

If you actually look on toms, the 3700+ on stock is better then the 3800+ on stock by quite a bit, overclocking the 3700 to 2.6ghz they showed it, it was like 140.9 fps on 3700+ 102.8 on the 3800+. My conclusion, 3700>3800

09-20-2005, 08:21 PM	#1
Rob Williams Editor-in-Chief Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Atlantic Canada Posts: 13,231	AMD64 3700+ San Diego S939 2.2GHz Need a CPU and want the best bang for your buck? Today, we are taking a look at the 3700+ San Diego core AMD64. It rolls in at a 2.2GHz stock speed and is also equipped with 1MB L2 Cache. The chip costs around $275US, but does does it give enough extra performance to warrent the extra money over a Venice core? After checking out the review here, please feel free to discuss it here! Questions, comments and suggestions are welcomed, and you do not need to register to post. __________________ Intel Core i7-990X EE @ 3.43GHz, GIGABYTE X58A-UD5, Kingston 12GB DDR3-1333, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2GB Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB SSD, WD VR 1TB, WD 2TB, Seagate 2TB, LG BD-ROM, ASUS DVD-RW, Corsair 1000HX, Corsair H60 Cooler Corsair 800D, Dell 2408WFP 24", ASUS Xonar Essence STX, Gentoo (KDE 4.10, 3.7 Kernel) "Take care to get what you like, or you will be forced to like what you get!" - H.P. Baxxter <Toad772> I don't always drink alcohol, but when I do, I take it too far. Last edited by Rob Williams; 09-21-2005 at 04:54 AM.

09-21-2005, 02:09 AM	#3
Greg King I just kinda show up... Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,081	Rob did quite a bit as well but thank you. I love this proc. I appreciate your kind words. And I agree....AMD is tops! __________________ "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan System: Intel i5 2500K \| Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD4 \| 16GB G.Skill DDR3 \| Crucial M4 128GB SSD WD 1TB Black x1 \| WD 2TB Green x 1 \| XFX Radeonn HD 6850 \| Corsair H80 Water Cooler Fractal Design R3 \| Windows 7 Ultimate x64 \| Dell 2410 x 3 @ 1920x1200 ESXi Host: Intel i7 920 @ 3.0 GHz \| Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P \| 24GB Patriot DDR3 \| WD 1TB Black x 2 Last edited by Greg King; 09-21-2005 at 02:12 AM.

10-20-2005, 12:19 AM	#4
Unregistered Guest Poster Posts: n/a	3700+ Sd I reckon that extra L2 cache will come in handy as the 64 software progresses and becomes more developed-mainstream, but hey, by then 1000kb of L2 will be stock and things will be looking even better,,lol. And so on,,the future looks good Looking forward to the AMD vs INTEL, if Intel accepts. AMD FAN<

10-20-2005, 11:26 AM	#5
Rob Williams Editor-in-Chief Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Atlantic Canada Posts: 13,231	Well, since AMD outsold Intel in the last little bit, it looks like we are winning __________________ Intel Core i7-990X EE @ 3.43GHz, GIGABYTE X58A-UD5, Kingston 12GB DDR3-1333, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2GB Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB SSD, WD VR 1TB, WD 2TB, Seagate 2TB, LG BD-ROM, ASUS DVD-RW, Corsair 1000HX, Corsair H60 Cooler Corsair 800D, Dell 2408WFP 24", ASUS Xonar Essence STX, Gentoo (KDE 4.10, 3.7 Kernel) "Take care to get what you like, or you will be forced to like what you get!" - H.P. Baxxter <Toad772> I don't always drink alcohol, but when I do, I take it too far.

11-07-2005, 11:08 PM	#6
AgentMeister Guest Poster Posts: n/a	Truly, one sweet bang 4 the buck Having that 3700+ Sandy inside your rig is a wise choice. OCing to the level of the FX-55 for less dollars and getting that performance is really great. I'm moving from my ol' reliable Socket-A to 939 and definitively that Sandy is my choice. Greetings.

09-20-2005, 11:03 PM	#2
Regeneration NGOHQ CEO Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 27	Nice review dude. AMD is the best!

11-08-2005, 12:20 AM	#7
Rob Williams Editor-in-Chief Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Atlantic Canada Posts: 13,231	Agent, I agree that the 3700+ is a damn sweet choice. You may want to consider an Opteron 144 or 146 in your decision though. They also have 1MB of Cache, and are very common to overclock past 3.0GHz stable on air or water. Either way, they both are kick ass chips. __________________ Intel Core i7-990X EE @ 3.43GHz, GIGABYTE X58A-UD5, Kingston 12GB DDR3-1333, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2GB Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB SSD, WD VR 1TB, WD 2TB, Seagate 2TB, LG BD-ROM, ASUS DVD-RW, Corsair 1000HX, Corsair H60 Cooler Corsair 800D, Dell 2408WFP 24", ASUS Xonar Essence STX, Gentoo (KDE 4.10, 3.7 Kernel) "Take care to get what you like, or you will be forced to like what you get!" - H.P. Baxxter <Toad772> I don't always drink alcohol, but when I do, I take it too far.

12-17-2005, 07:49 AM	#8
Unregistered Guest Poster Posts: n/a	Review feedback I would have liked to see how this chip compares with the 3800+ Venice and the gaming framerate tests seem to have been left out. Nonetheless, a good concise review.

12-18-2005, 12:00 AM	#9
Greg King I just kinda show up... Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,081	The 3800+ is a full 200 MHz faster than the 3700+. Video cards play a larger role in frame rates than the CPU, thats why I didnt include them. I did however include bench results from benchmarks that give an accurate reading on the CPU's power. __________________ "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan System: Intel i5 2500K \| Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD4 \| 16GB G.Skill DDR3 \| Crucial M4 128GB SSD WD 1TB Black x1 \| WD 2TB Green x 1 \| XFX Radeonn HD 6850 \| Corsair H80 Water Cooler Fractal Design R3 \| Windows 7 Ultimate x64 \| Dell 2410 x 3 @ 1920x1200 ESXi Host: Intel i7 920 @ 3.0 GHz \| Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P \| 24GB Patriot DDR3 \| WD 1TB Black x 2

12-18-2005, 11:02 AM	#10
Unregistered Guest Poster Posts: n/a	You have a point, but I have read on many forums that overclocked the 3700+ with its 1MB cache competes very well with the 3800+. I think many people like me, trying to decide between these two cpus would benefit from a tested performance comparison.

12-18-2005, 05:14 PM	#11
Greg King I just kinda show up... Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,081	Yes, I would like to see a comparison as well. The Venice and San Diego cores are both great. Since that review, I have been able to get up to 2.9 GHz so I am impressed with the results of this core (it's amazing what a nice PSU will do for you.) If you are torn between the two chips, by all means, get the cheaper of the two as the extra 512 of L2 doesnt make that much differance. __________________ "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan System: Intel i5 2500K \| Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD4 \| 16GB G.Skill DDR3 \| Crucial M4 128GB SSD WD 1TB Black x1 \| WD 2TB Green x 1 \| XFX Radeonn HD 6850 \| Corsair H80 Water Cooler Fractal Design R3 \| Windows 7 Ultimate x64 \| Dell 2410 x 3 @ 1920x1200 ESXi Host: Intel i7 920 @ 3.0 GHz \| Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P \| 24GB Patriot DDR3 \| WD 1TB Black x 2

04-12-2006, 01:12 PM	#12
therealjoe Guest Poster Posts: n/a	just buy the 3700 its cheeper i cant wait to get mine fired up di you have watercooling when you overclocked it or did you just have heatsink and fan?

04-12-2006, 01:54 PM	#13
Greg King I just kinda show up... Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,081	When I got up to 2.9 GHz, I was on air. I also had the window open and it was winter so I was getting really cheap, high performance cooling out of a Thermaltake Blue Orb II. __________________ "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan System: Intel i5 2500K \| Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD4 \| 16GB G.Skill DDR3 \| Crucial M4 128GB SSD WD 1TB Black x1 \| WD 2TB Green x 1 \| XFX Radeonn HD 6850 \| Corsair H80 Water Cooler Fractal Design R3 \| Windows 7 Ultimate x64 \| Dell 2410 x 3 @ 1920x1200 ESXi Host: Intel i7 920 @ 3.0 GHz \| Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P \| 24GB Patriot DDR3 \| WD 1TB Black x 2

08-13-2006, 02:12 PM	#14
Es4x Guest Poster Posts: n/a	If you actually look on toms, the 3700+ on stock is better then the 3800+ on stock by quite a bit, overclocking the 3700 to 2.6ghz they showed it, it was like 140.9 fps on 3700+ 102.8 on the 3800+. My conclusion, 3700>3800

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intel Demos 3.2GHz Nehalem at Shanghai IDF	Rob Williams	Processors	11	04-16-2008 02:18 AM
Just got my 3700+ in	Greg King	Processors	5	09-03-2005 02:21 PM
Discuss: AMD64 3200+ Venice Core	Rob Williams	Reviews and Articles	1	06-04-2005 08:42 PM