Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > celerom M 1.4GHz vs AMD 3000+ in a laptop

Reply
Thread Tools

celerom M 1.4GHz vs AMD 3000+ in a laptop

 
 
Daniel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2005
SteveM wrote:
>
> I was only refering to battery life, not processor performance.
> The Celeron M's do not use speedstep meaning that they drain the
> battery faster.
>


Oh, I see.

My apologies.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Daniel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2005
Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
>
> And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
> comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always have been.
> The Celeron 360 is only 1.4Ghz, the Sempron will eat it alive, no questions
> asked. The Celeron will however give around 30% longer battery life (per
> charge, not total lifespan).
>


The Celeron M360 is a derivative of the more efficient Tualatin cores -
not those long-pipelined designed-for-high-Hertz Northwoods or Williamettes.
The Tualatin cores owned the Thunderbirds head-to-head, before AMD even
started their XP rating system.
Unfortunately for Intel they dumped the Tualatin design - in hindsight a
very bad management decision, only to return to it for the mobile market.

Don't get the mobile Semprons confused with the desktop ones. A Mobile
Sempron 3000 uses 128KB L2 cache running at 1.8GHz. The equivalent
desktop Sempron 3000 is 256KB @ 1.8GHz.

There are also two mobile Sempron 3000 chips - one with 256KB L2 cache @
1.67GHz, the other 128KB @ 1.8GHz. So, in that instance AMD themselves
are saying that the bigger L2 cache compensates for slower clock speed.

This was also the situation when comparing Thoroughbreds vs Barton cores
(Thoroughbreds = 256KB L2, Barton = 512KB L2).

To say that the "Sempron will eat it alive, no questions asked" seems a
little premature to me.

The Celeron M360 has a 1MB L2 cache, that's a reasonable amount of
caching, and would compensate for a slower FSB speed especially for
tight-looped programs (i.e. games). The Sempron 3000 1.8GHz only has
128KB - remember even AMD concede that larger cache compensates for
lower clock speed.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

I agree with Misfit, you need more proof to back up your claims, or at
the very least a case justifying your position.

BTW: Wikipedia is a nice idea. The only problem I have with it is the
complete accuracy of some it's information.


> The Celeron doesn't have a hope, much less have the scales tipped in its
> favour. You shouldn't be advising people when you obviously don't have a
> clue.
>


[Sigh]

Some solid evidence to back your assertions would be nice.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jekyll and Hyde
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2005

"Daniel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:437ba80c$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
> >
> > And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
> > comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always have

been.
> > The Celeron 360 is only 1.4Ghz, the Sempron will eat it alive, no

questions
> > asked. The Celeron will however give around 30% longer battery life (per
> > charge, not total lifespan).
> >

>
> The Celeron M360 is a derivative of the more efficient Tualatin cores -
> not those long-pipelined designed-for-high-Hertz Northwoods or

Williamettes.
> The Tualatin cores owned the Thunderbirds head-to-head, before AMD even
> started their XP rating system.
> Unfortunately for Intel they dumped the Tualatin design - in hindsight a
> very bad management decision, only to return to it for the mobile market.
>
> Don't get the mobile Semprons confused with the desktop ones. A Mobile
> Sempron 3000 uses 128KB L2 cache running at 1.8GHz. The equivalent
> desktop Sempron 3000 is 256KB @ 1.8GHz.
>
> There are also two mobile Sempron 3000 chips - one with 256KB L2 cache @
> 1.67GHz, the other 128KB @ 1.8GHz. So, in that instance AMD themselves
> are saying that the bigger L2 cache compensates for slower clock speed.
>
> This was also the situation when comparing Thoroughbreds vs Barton cores
> (Thoroughbreds = 256KB L2, Barton = 512KB L2).
>
> To say that the "Sempron will eat it alive, no questions asked" seems a
> little premature to me.


Yeah, a bit overdramatised, but not premature.
>
> The Celeron M360 has a 1MB L2 cache, that's a reasonable amount of
> caching, and would compensate for a slower FSB speed especially for
> tight-looped programs (i.e. games). The Sempron 3000 1.8GHz only has
> 128KB - remember even AMD concede that larger cache compensates for
> lower clock speed.
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something.
>
> I agree with Misfit, you need more proof to back up your claims, or at
> the very least a case justifying your position.


Hmm, people can make up arbitrary comparisons and claim them as AMDs policy
("The 3000 rating for the Sempron is designed to indicate that the AMD
chip is about as fast as an old Mobile Celeron (not to be confused with with
Celeron M's) running at 3GHz)", yet I need proof for making true statments;
interesting. The large 1mb cache really does help the Celeron, but not
enough to beat the Sempron...

Low power models - Sempron 3000+ 16% ahead of Celeron M340 (1.5ghz)
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...~92831,00.html
Desktop models - Sempron 2600+ 9% faster than Celeron 2.8Ghz
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...~88873,00.html

Other benchmarks at amd.com/us/processors/information show Sempron 3000+ up
to 20% faster than Celeron M340 (1.5ghz)

>
> BTW: Wikipedia is a nice idea. The only problem I have with it is the
> complete accuracy of some it's information.


The information is also available elsewhere for confirmation, Wikipedia is
just convenient.
>
>
> > The Celeron doesn't have a hope, much less have the scales tipped in its
> > favour. You shouldn't be advising people when you obviously don't have a
> > clue.
> >

>
> [Sigh]
>
> Some solid evidence to back your assertions would be nice.


See above.

Jekyll and Hyde.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jekyll and Hyde
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2005
"~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:437b46f4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
> > "Daniel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:dlbgub$lpi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Daniel wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hmmm... I'd tend to lean towards the Celeron M 360. It might be
> >>> slower in terms of clock speed, but, when the Sempron only has
> >>> 128KB of L2 cache, and the M360 has 1MB, that would tip the balance
> >>> a little bit in the Celeron's favour.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The 3000 rating for the Sempron is designed to indicate that the AMD
> >> chip is about as fast as an old Mobile Celeron (not to be confused
> >> with with Celeron M's) running at 3GHz.

> >
> > And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
> > comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always
> > have been.

>
> I would really appreciate it if you could please show me irrefutable proof
> of that statement.


See below.

>
> I know that the AMD Athlon XP AR rating was supposed to be indicative of a
> comparison to a Thunderbird but Sempron's are a whole different ball-game.
> Unless you can prove me wrong.


Semprons continue to use the PR that was originally based on the T'bird, see
below.

> > The Celeron 360 is only 1.4Ghz, the Sempron will eat it
> > alive, no questions asked. The Celeron will however give around 30%
> > longer battery life (per charge, not total lifespan).
> >
> > The Celeron doesn't have a hope, much less have the scales tipped in
> > its favour. You shouldn't be advising people when you obviously don't
> > have a clue.

>
> It would seem that the clueless one here is you HOG. A name-change doesn't
> make you any more knowledgable. It would take another of those AMD free

food
> and drink evenings to do that. <snigger>


I'm not HOG, don't know who he is and don't care.
>
> <Waiting for proof of above rating comparison statement>


Your wait is over, from AMD's Sempron FAQ...
Q: What does the 3200+ model mean? (Sempron 3200+)

A: This is a model number. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using
model numbers, as opposed to megahertz. Model numbers are designed to
communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD
Athlon XP processors. As additional evidence that performance is not based
on megahertz alone: the AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ operates at a
frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform an Intel PentiumŪ 4 processor
operating at 3.0GHz with an 800 FSB and HyperThreading on a broad array of
real-world applications for office productivity, digital media and 3-D
gaming.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...1_3876,00.html

Given that the original XP????+ number was based on the T'birds, as above we
see the naming scheme hasn't changed.

Jekyll and Hyde.

> --
> ~misfit~
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2005
Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> <Waiting for proof of above rating comparison statement>

>
> Your wait is over, from AMD's Sempron FAQ...
> Q: What does the 3200+ model mean? (Sempron 3200+)
>
> A: This is a model number. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor
> using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz. Model numbers are
> designed to communicate the relative application performance among
> the various AMD Athlon XP processors. As additional evidence that
> performance is not based on megahertz alone: the AMD Athlon XP
> processor 3200+ operates at a frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform
> an Intel PentiumŪ 4 processor operating at 3.0GHz with an 800 FSB and
> HyperThreading on a broad array of real-world applications for office
> productivity, digital media and 3-D gaming.
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...1_3876,00.html


Dude! I don't know how many hits you've had on that bong but I suggest you
put it down about now. That page that you reference, that you say is from
AMD's Sempron FAQ, is *very* clearly headed up, in a large, bold font: "AMD
Athlon XP Processor 3200+ frequently asked questions". Athlon, not Sempron.

So I ask you again, as here:

> > And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
> > comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always
> > have been.

>
> I would really appreciate it if you could please show me irrefutable proof
> of that statement.


Proof please. Back up your claims. Not about Athlons, we've already
established that, about Semprons.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2005
Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
>
> Low power models - Sempron 3000+ 16% ahead of Celeron M340 (1.5ghz)
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...~92831,00.html
> Desktop models - Sempron 2600+ 9% faster than Celeron 2.8Ghz
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...~88873,00.html
>
> Other benchmarks at amd.com/us/processors/information show Sempron 3000+ up
> to 20% faster than Celeron M340 (1.5ghz)
>


Coming from the vendors website, I tended to ignore those benchmarks.

However, I did this find interesting:-
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...on-2600_5.html

I did bit a more googling, and although I couldn't find any firm
benchmarks comparing the M360 to the Sempron 3000, I must admit, by all
accounts the Sempron 3000 does indeed perform better.

One thing I found of great interest was that the Sempron 3000 actually
performed quite close to a Athlon 64 3000 socket 939 version - not bad
at all.

TBH, I never thought AMD would allow such close performance margins
between the Semprons and the Athlon 64s of the same rating. But, there
you go.

Yep, Sempron 3000 - very nice CPU.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2005
Daniel wrote:
> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
>
>
> Coming from the vendors website, I tended to ignore those benchmarks.
>
> However, I did this find interesting:-
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...on-2600_5.html
>
> I did bit a more googling, and although I couldn't find any firm
> benchmarks comparing the M360 to the Sempron 3000, I must admit, by all
> accounts the Sempron 3000 does indeed perform better.
>
> One thing I found of great interest was that the Sempron 3000 actually
> performed quite close to a Athlon 64 3000 socket 939 version - not bad
> at all.
>
> TBH, I never thought AMD would allow such close performance margins
> between the Semprons and the Athlon 64s of the same rating. But, there
> you go.
>
> Yep, Sempron 3000 - very nice CPU.


Perhaps the biggest thing I've discovered, is that with Socket 754 (and
939), the L2 cache size looks to have a minimal effect on performance,
with the possible exception of the odd game (i.e. Doom 3).

Good to know.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMD Phenom II X2 550 and AMD Athlon II X2 250 Processors Review Ian Front Page News 0 06-02-2009 08:40 AM
A very good (for AMD/ATI) AMD's hdmi chipset... thingy NZ Computing 10 03-09-2008 02:20 AM
Laptop A -> Wireless Router -> Laptop B and Laptop C ??? rafael Wireless Networking 7 01-21-2008 02:10 AM
interesting comment on amd from the Inquirer...AMD RIP I wonder? thingy NZ Computing 23 12-02-2007 12:16 AM
AMD Sempron vs AMD Athlon Dalgibbard Computer Support 2 09-16-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments