# AMD Athlon64 3800+ Venice



## W1zzard (May 15, 2005)

AMD has released a new revision of their Athlon64 S939, the code name is Venice. Venice is produced in 90nm, has 512KB Cache and is clocked betwen 1.8 GHz and 2.4 GHz. We test it against the Winchster and two Pentium4 systems.

*Show full review*


----------



## gR3iF (May 15, 2005)

hmpf and i thought my oc result is good 
but n1 cpu for future but at least no option to the x2 cpus and the coming things


----------



## Unregistered (May 17, 2005)

*a thing i don`t understand*

"an improved Integrated Memory Controller (IMC), which means the the CPU itself manages the computer's memory. With those improvements it is now possible to run 2GB memory at 200 MHz with a CommandRate of 2T. Previous CPUs were only able to run 2GB Memory in Async Mode (5:4 - Ram: 166 MHz 2T). "

????
I am running 4x512 Corsair XMS PC-550, e.g. 2GB Memory with a Winchester 3500+ on a MSI K8N
Platinum at 210MHz with 2T!!!!

how is this Possible?

greetz 
ODO


----------



## nightelf84 (May 17, 2005)

Unregistered said:
			
		

> "an improved Integrated Memory Controller (IMC), which means the the CPU itself manages the computer's memory. With those improvements it is now possible to run 2GB memory at 200 MHz with a CommandRate of 2T. Previous CPUs were only able to run 2GB Memory in Async Mode (5:4 - Ram: 166 MHz 2T). "
> 
> ????
> I am running 4x512 Corsair XMS PC-550, e.g. 2GB Memory with a Winchester 3500+ on a MSI K8N
> ...



And what kind of speed is ur memory running at in this configuration?


----------



## Unregistered (May 17, 2005)

CPU and RAM @ 210......

i just checked it, cause i was a littel bit confused!

greetz 
ODO


----------



## Unregistered (May 17, 2005)

sorry, or do you mean the Timmings?

2,5-4-4-8

greetz 
ODO


----------



## ZathaN (May 20, 2005)

> Venice is definitely faster than Winchester, this is the biggest difference we could see in all benchmarks. The Pentium 4s are slower. <

Intel Dothan is faster than any AMD64


----------



## gR3iF (May 20, 2005)

so what? tell us somethig new 
like a good pentium m board


----------



## wazzledoozle (May 20, 2005)

Free Athlon 64


----------



## Morlak (May 26, 2005)

ZathaN said:
			
		

> > Venice is definitely faster than Winchester, this is the biggest difference we could see in all benchmarks. The Pentium 4s are slower. <
> 
> Intel Dothan is faster than any AMD64



Not quite faster but holding their own. Reviews have shown the M to be a very good processor, but the new AMD's still kick its little butt in almost every test.

I compared my own overclocked P4 650 (3.4Ghz) with the performance of the Venice 3800+ in the review here.

Processors cost about the same but I think the 3800+ is just a little bit cheaper.

Sandra CPU Benchmark

3800+   13228 MIPS  Highest Overclock 11x260
3800+   12717 MPIS  Lowest Overclock 11x244
Mine:    11873 MIPS
3800+:  11143 MIPS  Stock 11x200

Mine:    4940/8324 Flops
3800+   4517/5846 Flops  Highest Overclock 11x260 


SuperPI  1M

3800+    29.7  Highest Overclock 11x260
3800+    31.6  Lowest Overclock 11x244
Mine      33
3800+    35.4  Stock 

Super PI 32M

3800+    28.98  Highest Overclock 11x260
3800+    30.71  Stock 11x200
Mine      31.71  
3500+    33.06  11x200  

Number crunching performance is not quite so lopsided as the review shows. You cannot say "P4s are slow", at least any recent P4 compared to this AMD. FX-55s and X2s oh yeah you bet. Everything is slow compared to them.  But there is a huge difference in the 600 series compared to what is used here.  I'll even try the benchmarks again when I don't have other stuff running. BeyondTV was recording a show, and my raid array was rebuilding a mirror, and all of that surely affected my results somewhat. Haha it's all in fun anyway. Id like to see how a overclocked 3.6 or 3.8Ghz P4 compares with a 3800+.


----------



## CTRL-ALT-DEL (Jul 12, 2005)

Is those temperatures under load or idle? If under load, what program did you guys use?


----------



## wazzledoozle (Jul 13, 2005)

You cant expect good temperatures with the stock cooler and thermal paste... (at 2.9 GHz)


----------



## Quake2owns (Feb 5, 2006)

wazzledoozle said:
			
		

> You cant expect good temperatures with the stock cooler and thermal paste... (at 2.9 GHz)


xp-90c 92mm fan cpu temps 2.9 ghz=65c idle.


----------

