Difference between San Diego and Venice

speeddemon · Apprentice Joined: 27 Sep 2003 Posts: 162

Ok, Im about to build my new computer (hopefully this week). Now I was wondering, what all is the difference between the San Diego and Venice cores? I know the San Diego has 1 mb of cache instead of 512, but is that the only difference. And is it worth paying more money for?

And my other question, Ive noticed that some places have 2 of the same processor for sale, with the only difference being the AMD model number: one ends with BPBOX and the other ends with CGBOX. Any difference?

I've looked all over, but its getting kind of frustrating.

butane317 · n00b Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 55

I believe (but don't quote me on this) that the Venice core supports SSE3 while San Diego does not.

zietbukuel · l33t Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 607

It is kown that the Venice cores are great overclockers...

I have a venice and i can overclock the cpu from 2.0 to 2.7 stable(using anorther kind heatsink btw) but im using the stock one so ive just overclocked to 2.4

wantilles · Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:23 am Post subject:

They only differ in the amount of L2 cache. -> 1MB vs. 512KB.

The same difference that the dual-core cores Toledo and Manchester have -> 2x1MB vs. 2x512KB.

enrique · Guru Joined: 03 Sep 2002 Posts: 342 Location: Denmark

Here are some great resources:

http://www.techreport.com/cpu/index.x?sort=socket
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/
_________________
Kind regards, enrique
Workstation,HTPC,Powerbook