which cpu is faster?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by graviton, Nov 15, 2005.

  1. graviton

    graviton Guest

    Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+ or a
    sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference between the
    performance of these processors in general? Just a rough idea please?
    graviton, Nov 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. graviton wrote:
    > Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    > development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+ or a
    > sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference between the
    > performance of these processors in general? Just a rough idea please?


    Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
    Nicholas Sherlock, Nov 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. graviton

    graviton Guest

    "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    > graviton wrote:
    > > Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    > > development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+ or a
    > > sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference between the
    > > performance of these processors in general? Just a rough idea please?

    >
    > Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    > performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Nicholas Sherlock


    Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if it was still
    better than the new low end sempron cpu?
    graviton, Nov 15, 2005
    #3
  4. graviton

    J Brockley Guest

    The sempron is the lower spec version but the differences probably only
    exist for high end processes like video encoding. Even then differences are
    probably only is low single % numbers.



    "graviton" <> wrote in message
    news:43797493$...
    > Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    > development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+ or a
    > sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference between the
    > performance of these processors in general? Just a rough idea please?
    >
    >
    J Brockley, Nov 15, 2005
    #4
  5. graviton

    ~misfit~ Guest

    graviton wrote:
    > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    >> graviton wrote:
    >>> Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    >>> development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+
    >>> or a sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference
    >>> between the performance of these processors in general? Just a
    >>> rough idea please?

    >>
    >> Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    >> performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> Nicholas Sherlock

    >
    > Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if it
    > was still better than the new low end sempron cpu?


    Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison with
    Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.

    Would you rather have a 2.1GHz Pentium or a 2.4GHz Celeron? I'd take the
    former everytime. Even if it is a couple years old. They're the same basic
    architecture.

    What are the rated clock speeds? How much L1 and L2 cache?

    Athlon XP2100+ : 1.733GHz, 128k L1, 256k L2.
    Sempron 2400+ : 1.670GHz, 128k L1 256k L2.

    So, to answer your question, the Athlon is the faster CPU. Now, if you
    wanted to know which would perform better in a system then that's a whole
    different question.

    The Athlon runs on a 133MHz FSB whereas the Sempron runs on 166MHz.

    Six of one, half a dozen of the other. One is a faster CPU on a slower FSB,
    the other is vice-versa. Your choice. IMO other factors would be the
    deciders. Does the mobo support 166MHz FSB? How are they priced or do you
    already have them? Do you have RAM that will run at 166?

    Yada yada yada.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 15, 2005
    #5
  6. graviton

    graviton Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:4379846a$...
    > graviton wrote:
    > > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > > news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    > >> graviton wrote:
    > >>> Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    > >>> development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+
    > >>> or a sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference
    > >>> between the performance of these processors in general? Just a
    > >>> rough idea please?
    > >>
    > >> Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    > >> performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    > >>
    > >> Cheers,
    > >> Nicholas Sherlock

    > >
    > > Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if it
    > > was still better than the new low end sempron cpu?

    >
    > Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison with
    > Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.
    >
    > Would you rather have a 2.1GHz Pentium or a 2.4GHz Celeron? I'd take the
    > former everytime. Even if it is a couple years old. They're the same basic
    > architecture.
    >
    > What are the rated clock speeds? How much L1 and L2 cache?
    >
    > Athlon XP2100+ : 1.733GHz, 128k L1, 256k L2.
    > Sempron 2400+ : 1.670GHz, 128k L1 256k L2.
    >
    > So, to answer your question, the Athlon is the faster CPU. Now, if you
    > wanted to know which would perform better in a system then that's a whole
    > different question.
    >
    > The Athlon runs on a 133MHz FSB whereas the Sempron runs on 166MHz.
    >
    > Six of one, half a dozen of the other. One is a faster CPU on a slower

    FSB,
    > the other is vice-versa. Your choice. IMO other factors would be the
    > deciders. Does the mobo support 166MHz FSB? How are they priced or do you
    > already have them? Do you have RAM that will run at 166?
    >
    > Yada yada yada.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >


    Thanks a lot, that gives me all the info I need for now.
    graviton, Nov 15, 2005
    #6
  7. graviton

    graviton Guest

    thanks.


    "J Brockley" <> wrote in message
    news:dlbvep$io6$...
    > The sempron is the lower spec version but the differences probably only
    > exist for high end processes like video encoding. Even then differences

    are
    > probably only is low single % numbers.
    >
    >
    >
    > "graviton" <> wrote in message
    > news:43797493$...
    > > Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    > > development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+ or a
    > > sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference between the
    > > performance of these processors in general? Just a rough idea please?
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    graviton, Nov 15, 2005
    #7
  8. graviton

    Bret Guest

    On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:34:09 +1300, "graviton" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >news:4379846a$...
    >> graviton wrote:
    >> > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    >> >> graviton wrote:
    >> >>> Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    >> >>> development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+
    >> >>> or a sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference
    >> >>> between the performance of these processors in general? Just a
    >> >>> rough idea please?
    >> >>
    >> >> Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    >> >> performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    >> >>
    >> >> Cheers,
    >> >> Nicholas Sherlock
    >> >
    >> > Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if it
    >> > was still better than the new low end sempron cpu?

    >>
    >> Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison with
    >> Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.
    >>
    >> Would you rather have a 2.1GHz Pentium or a 2.4GHz Celeron? I'd take the
    >> former everytime. Even if it is a couple years old. They're the same basic
    >> architecture.
    >>
    >> What are the rated clock speeds? How much L1 and L2 cache?
    >>
    >> Athlon XP2100+ : 1.733GHz, 128k L1, 256k L2.
    >> Sempron 2400+ : 1.670GHz, 128k L1 256k L2.
    >>
    >> So, to answer your question, the Athlon is the faster CPU. Now, if you
    >> wanted to know which would perform better in a system then that's a whole
    >> different question.
    >>
    >> The Athlon runs on a 133MHz FSB whereas the Sempron runs on 166MHz.
    >>
    >> Six of one, half a dozen of the other. One is a faster CPU on a slower

    >FSB,
    >> the other is vice-versa. Your choice. IMO other factors would be the
    >> deciders. Does the mobo support 166MHz FSB? How are they priced or do you
    >> already have them? Do you have RAM that will run at 166?
    >>
    >> Yada yada yada.
    >> --
    >> ~misfit~
    >>

    >
    >Thanks a lot, that gives me all the info I need for now.
    >


    I replaced an Athlon 2400 with a Sempron 2200, I would pick the
    Sempron as the faster cpu, probably due to the 333 fsb.
    Depends on the end use I suppose, L2 cache is larger on the Athlon.
    I'm running an Athlon 3000 333 fsb now :)
    Bret, Nov 15, 2005
    #8
  9. graviton

    ~misfit~ Guest

    graviton wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:4379846a$...


    <snip>

    >> Yada yada yada.

    >
    > Thanks a lot, that gives me all the info I need for now.


    You're welcome.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 15, 2005
    #9
  10. "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:4379846a$...
    > graviton wrote:
    > > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > > news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    > >> graviton wrote:
    > >>> Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer hardware
    > >>> development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp 2100+
    > >>> or a sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference
    > >>> between the performance of these processors in general? Just a
    > >>> rough idea please?
    > >>
    > >> Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    > >> performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    > >>
    > >> Cheers,
    > >> Nicholas Sherlock

    > >
    > > Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if it
    > > was still better than the new low end sempron cpu?

    >
    > Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison with
    > Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.


    Thats incorrect, as are other contrivances that have appeared, such as Toms
    Hardwares XP????+ = P4???? (where ???? is a cpu speed or rating). Others
    have even suggested that rating is the clock speed + the bus speed. Athlons
    are rated in comparison to the original Thunderbird Athlons, so a 3800+ will
    go as fast as a Thunderbird running at 3800Mhz would have. So far as I'm
    aware the basis of the naming convention has never changed (This was covered
    in the AMD Gold Cert I did) .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon

    Take the Sempron, it has the best rating, and the higher bus speed.

    Jekyll and Hyde.


    > Would you rather have a 2.1GHz Pentium or a 2.4GHz Celeron? I'd take the
    > former everytime. Even if it is a couple years old. They're the same basic
    > architecture.
    >
    > What are the rated clock speeds? How much L1 and L2 cache?
    >
    > Athlon XP2100+ : 1.733GHz, 128k L1, 256k L2.
    > Sempron 2400+ : 1.670GHz, 128k L1 256k L2.
    >
    > So, to answer your question, the Athlon is the faster CPU. Now, if you
    > wanted to know which would perform better in a system then that's a whole
    > different question.
    >
    > The Athlon runs on a 133MHz FSB whereas the Sempron runs on 166MHz.
    >
    > Six of one, half a dozen of the other. One is a faster CPU on a slower

    FSB,
    > the other is vice-versa. Your choice. IMO other factors would be the
    > deciders. Does the mobo support 166MHz FSB? How are they priced or do you
    > already have them? Do you have RAM that will run at 166?
    >
    > Yada yada yada.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >
    Jekyll and Hyde, Nov 16, 2005
    #10
  11. graviton

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >> Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison
    >> with Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.

    >
    > Thats incorrect, as are other contrivances that have appeared, such
    > as Toms Hardwares XP????+ = P4???? (where ???? is a cpu speed or
    > rating). Others have even suggested that rating is the clock speed +
    > the bus speed. Athlons are rated in comparison to the original
    > Thunderbird Athlons,


    Yes, I know that. However, I figured that the post was long enough already
    without getting knotted knickers over little things like that. The
    comparison was near enough accurate for the purpose of answering the
    question.

    > so a 3800+ will go as fast as a Thunderbird
    > running at 3800Mhz would have. So far as I'm aware the basis of the
    > naming convention has never changed (This was covered in the AMD Gold
    > Cert I did) .


    But that was ages ago, back before AMD recommended thermal paste for a TIM
    instead of a pad. Surely that Gold Star has an expiry date? I thought they
    were good for six months?

    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon


    You been writing pages on Wiki again to support your arguments? From that
    article: "....... to be replaced by the cut-down Semprons."

    > Take the Sempron, it has the best rating,


    Hey, Gold Star boy, care to explain the Sempron's ratings? You're the man
    when it comes to AMD CPUs obviously. So, if the XP rationg was intended to
    indicate how the CPU would perform in comnparison to a Thunderbird CPU, what
    dos the Sempron rating indicate? Quick, better write a page for Wiki and
    make something up..... Hang on, there's one already and it starts with:
    "Sempron is AMD's newest low-end CPU, replacing the Duron processor and
    competing against Intel's Celeron D processor."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sempron

    > and the higher bus speed.


    You're welcome to your opinion HOG. However, taking the Sempron will be no
    good to the OP if his mobo or RAM only supports 133MHz FSB now will it?

    How come you replied to my post instead of just offering an opinion for the
    OP to evaluate?
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 16, 2005
    #11
  12. graviton

    Impossible Guest

    "Jekyll and Hyde" <Jekyll and > wrote in message
    news:OyDef.1672$...
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:4379846a$...
    >> graviton wrote:
    >> > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    >> >> graviton wrote:
    >> >>> Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer
    >> >>> hardware
    >> >>> development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp
    >> >>> 2100+
    >> >>> or a sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference
    >> >>> between the performance of these processors in general? Just a
    >> >>> rough idea please?
    >> >>
    >> >> Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    >> >> performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    >> >>
    >> >> Cheers,
    >> >> Nicholas Sherlock
    >> >
    >> > Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if
    >> > it
    >> > was still better than the new low end sempron cpu?

    >>
    >> Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison
    >> with
    >> Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.

    >
    > Thats incorrect, as are other contrivances that have appeared, such
    > as Toms
    > Hardwares XP????+ = P4???? (where ???? is a cpu speed or rating).
    > Others
    > have even suggested that rating is the clock speed + the bus speed.
    > Athlons
    > are rated in comparison to the original Thunderbird Athlons, so a
    > 3800+ will
    > go as fast as a Thunderbird running at 3800Mhz would have. So far as
    > I'm
    > aware the basis of the naming convention has never changed (This was
    > covered
    > in the AMD Gold Cert I did) .
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon
    >
    > Take the Sempron, it has the best rating, and the higher bus speed.
    >
    > Jekyll and Hyde.
    >
    >
    >> Would you rather have a 2.1GHz Pentium or a 2.4GHz Celeron? I'd
    >> take the
    >> former everytime. Even if it is a couple years old. They're the
    >> same basic
    >> architecture.
    >>
    >> What are the rated clock speeds? How much L1 and L2 cache?
    >>
    >> Athlon XP2100+ : 1.733GHz, 128k L1, 256k L2.
    >> Sempron 2400+ : 1.670GHz, 128k L1 256k L2.
    >>
    >> So, to answer your question, the Athlon is the faster CPU. Now, if
    >> you
    >> wanted to know which would perform better in a system then that's a
    >> whole
    >> different question.
    >>
    >> The Athlon runs on a 133MHz FSB whereas the Sempron runs on 166MHz.
    >>
    >> Six of one, half a dozen of the other. One is a faster CPU on a
    >> slower

    > FSB,
    >> the other is vice-versa. Your choice. IMO other factors would be
    >> the
    >> deciders. Does the mobo support 166MHz FSB? How are they priced or
    >> do you
    >> already have them? Do you have RAM that will run at 166?
    >>
    >> Yada yada yada.
    >> --


    It all comes down to benchmarks. Say what you will about the opinions
    expressed at Tom's Hardware, but the hard information they provide is
    unbeatable. Here you can choose from any number of respected
    benchmarks and directly compare the performance of most AMD and Intel
    processors.

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=81&model2=74&chart=14

    For example, compare the Athlon XP 2800+ to the Sempron 2800+. I think
    you'll find that in every case the Athlon XP outperforms the Sempron
    by a considerable margin. Whether this difference matters in the real
    world to someone buying a processor with a specific purpose, and a
    specific budget, in mind is a whole other matter. But there is no
    excuse for claiming an equivalence that just isn't there.

    Of course, all bets are off if you try to fit square pegs into round
    holes -- the assumption in these benchmarks is that you are using a
    motherboard and ram that makes full use of the processor's
    capabilities. Bus speed is only half the story, so it's seldom wise to
    upgrade a cpu without upgrading the other components as well.
    Impossible, Nov 16, 2005
    #12
  13. graviton

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Impossible wrote:
    > "Jekyll and Hyde" <Jekyll and > wrote in message
    > news:OyDef.1672$...
    >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4379846a$...
    >>> graviton wrote:
    >>>> "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    >>>>> graviton wrote:
    >>>>>> Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer
    >>>>>> hardware
    >>>>>> development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp
    >>>>>> 2100+
    >>>>>> or a sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference
    >>>>>> between the performance of these processors in general? Just a
    >>>>>> rough idea please?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    >>>>> performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Cheers,
    >>>>> Nicholas Sherlock
    >>>>
    >>>> Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if
    >>>> it
    >>>> was still better than the new low end sempron cpu?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison
    >>> with
    >>> Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.

    >>
    >> Thats incorrect, as are other contrivances that have appeared, such
    >> as Toms
    >> Hardwares XP????+ = P4???? (where ???? is a cpu speed or rating).
    >> Others
    >> have even suggested that rating is the clock speed + the bus speed.
    >> Athlons
    >> are rated in comparison to the original Thunderbird Athlons, so a
    >> 3800+ will
    >> go as fast as a Thunderbird running at 3800Mhz would have. So far as
    >> I'm
    >> aware the basis of the naming convention has never changed (This was
    >> covered
    >> in the AMD Gold Cert I did) .
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon
    >>
    >> Take the Sempron, it has the best rating, and the higher bus speed.
    >>
    >> Jekyll and Hyde.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Would you rather have a 2.1GHz Pentium or a 2.4GHz Celeron? I'd
    >>> take the
    >>> former everytime. Even if it is a couple years old. They're the
    >>> same basic
    >>> architecture.
    >>>
    >>> What are the rated clock speeds? How much L1 and L2 cache?
    >>>
    >>> Athlon XP2100+ : 1.733GHz, 128k L1, 256k L2.
    >>> Sempron 2400+ : 1.670GHz, 128k L1 256k L2.
    >>>
    >>> So, to answer your question, the Athlon is the faster CPU. Now, if
    >>> you
    >>> wanted to know which would perform better in a system then that's a
    >>> whole
    >>> different question.
    >>>
    >>> The Athlon runs on a 133MHz FSB whereas the Sempron runs on 166MHz.
    >>>
    >>> Six of one, half a dozen of the other. One is a faster CPU on a
    >>> slower

    >> FSB,
    >>> the other is vice-versa. Your choice. IMO other factors would be
    >>> the
    >>> deciders. Does the mobo support 166MHz FSB? How are they priced or
    >>> do you
    >>> already have them? Do you have RAM that will run at 166?
    >>>
    >>> Yada yada yada.
    >>> --

    >
    > It all comes down to benchmarks. Say what you will about the opinions
    > expressed at Tom's Hardware, but the hard information they provide is
    > unbeatable. Here you can choose from any number of respected
    > benchmarks and directly compare the performance of most AMD and Intel
    > processors.
    >
    > http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=81&model2=74&chart=14
    >
    > For example, compare the Athlon XP 2800+ to the Sempron 2800+. I think
    > you'll find that in every case the Athlon XP outperforms the Sempron
    > by a considerable margin. Whether this difference matters in the real
    > world to someone buying a processor with a specific purpose, and a
    > specific budget, in mind is a whole other matter. But there is no
    > excuse for claiming an equivalence that just isn't there.
    >
    > Of course, all bets are off if you try to fit square pegs into round
    > holes -- the assumption in these benchmarks is that you are using a
    > motherboard and ram that makes full use of the processor's
    > capabilities. Bus speed is only half the story, so it's seldom wise to
    > upgrade a cpu without upgrading the other components as well.


    Gasp! I don't believe it! You're refuting information a man with an AMD Gold
    Star has passed down from on high?

    LOL, good on ya. HOG is way behind the times.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 16, 2005
    #13
  14. "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:437b4555$...
    > Impossible wrote:
    > > "Jekyll and Hyde" <Jekyll and > wrote in message
    > > news:OyDef.1672$...
    > >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:4379846a$...
    > >>> graviton wrote:
    > >>>> "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > >>>> news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    > >>>>> graviton wrote:
    > >>>>>> Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer
    > >>>>>> hardware
    > >>>>>> development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp
    > >>>>>> 2100+
    > >>>>>> or a sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference
    > >>>>>> between the performance of these processors in general? Just a
    > >>>>>> rough idea please?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    > >>>>> performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Cheers,
    > >>>>> Nicholas Sherlock
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if
    > >>>> it
    > >>>> was still better than the new low end sempron cpu?
    > >>>
    > >>> Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison
    > >>> with
    > >>> Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.
    > >>
    > >> Thats incorrect, as are other contrivances that have appeared, such
    > >> as Toms
    > >> Hardwares XP????+ = P4???? (where ???? is a cpu speed or rating).
    > >> Others
    > >> have even suggested that rating is the clock speed + the bus speed.
    > >> Athlons
    > >> are rated in comparison to the original Thunderbird Athlons, so a
    > >> 3800+ will
    > >> go as fast as a Thunderbird running at 3800Mhz would have. So far as
    > >> I'm
    > >> aware the basis of the naming convention has never changed (This was
    > >> covered
    > >> in the AMD Gold Cert I did) .
    > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon
    > >>
    > >> Take the Sempron, it has the best rating, and the higher bus speed.
    > >>
    > >> Jekyll and Hyde.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>> Would you rather have a 2.1GHz Pentium or a 2.4GHz Celeron? I'd
    > >>> take the
    > >>> former everytime. Even if it is a couple years old. They're the
    > >>> same basic
    > >>> architecture.
    > >>>
    > >>> What are the rated clock speeds? How much L1 and L2 cache?
    > >>>
    > >>> Athlon XP2100+ : 1.733GHz, 128k L1, 256k L2.
    > >>> Sempron 2400+ : 1.670GHz, 128k L1 256k L2.
    > >>>
    > >>> So, to answer your question, the Athlon is the faster CPU. Now, if
    > >>> you
    > >>> wanted to know which would perform better in a system then that's a
    > >>> whole
    > >>> different question.
    > >>>
    > >>> The Athlon runs on a 133MHz FSB whereas the Sempron runs on 166MHz.
    > >>>
    > >>> Six of one, half a dozen of the other. One is a faster CPU on a
    > >>> slower
    > >> FSB,
    > >>> the other is vice-versa. Your choice. IMO other factors would be
    > >>> the
    > >>> deciders. Does the mobo support 166MHz FSB? How are they priced or
    > >>> do you
    > >>> already have them? Do you have RAM that will run at 166?
    > >>>
    > >>> Yada yada yada.
    > >>> --

    > >
    > > It all comes down to benchmarks. Say what you will about the opinions
    > > expressed at Tom's Hardware, but the hard information they provide is
    > > unbeatable. Here you can choose from any number of respected
    > > benchmarks and directly compare the performance of most AMD and Intel
    > > processors.
    > >
    > >

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=81&model2=74&chart=14
    > >
    > > For example, compare the Athlon XP 2800+ to the Sempron 2800+. I think
    > > you'll find that in every case the Athlon XP outperforms the Sempron
    > > by a considerable margin. Whether this difference matters in the real
    > > world to someone buying a processor with a specific purpose, and a
    > > specific budget, in mind is a whole other matter. But there is no
    > > excuse for claiming an equivalence that just isn't there.
    > >
    > > Of course, all bets are off if you try to fit square pegs into round
    > > holes -- the assumption in these benchmarks is that you are using a
    > > motherboard and ram that makes full use of the processor's
    > > capabilities. Bus speed is only half the story, so it's seldom wise to
    > > upgrade a cpu without upgrading the other components as well.

    >
    > Gasp! I don't believe it! You're refuting information a man with an AMD

    Gold
    > Star has passed down from on high?


    Star? On high? Its a cert. Refuting what? I didn't say anything about 2800
    cpus. Impossible may be right if they are both 333Mhz models, but AMDs
    website has plenty of benchmarks where lower rated Semprons beat higer rated
    XPs. Graviton is comparing AXP2100+ with Semp2400+. Impossibles point is
    sometimes true and also holds for other situations like 2600+(333Mhz fsb)
    vs. 2600+(266Mhz fsb). I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said?
    If you troll AMDs website you'll see that lower rated AXPs do best a higher
    rated Sempron sometimes, and the higher rated Semp bests the lower rated AXP
    sometimes. But as impossible points out benchmarks don't necessarily
    translate into real workld performance and given that AMD have compared all
    these stats themselves then I would go for the cpu they rated as higher and
    choose the Semp 2400 (after all they made it).
    >
    > LOL, good on ya. HOG is way behind the times.


    HOG? wtf??

    Jekyll and Hyde.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >
    Jekyll and Hyde, Nov 17, 2005
    #14
  15. "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:437b1459$...
    > Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > >> Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison
    > >> with Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.

    > >
    > > Thats incorrect, as are other contrivances that have appeared, such
    > > as Toms Hardwares XP????+ = P4???? (where ???? is a cpu speed or
    > > rating). Others have even suggested that rating is the clock speed +
    > > the bus speed. Athlons are rated in comparison to the original
    > > Thunderbird Athlons,

    >
    > Yes, I know that. However, I figured that the post was long enough already
    > without getting knotted knickers over little things like that. The
    > comparison was near enough accurate for the purpose of answering the
    > question.


    I agree it could provide a crude comparison, but to say its the PR scheme
    AMD use is just wrong.

    > > so a 3800+ will go as fast as a Thunderbird
    > > running at 3800Mhz would have. So far as I'm aware the basis of the
    > > naming convention has never changed (This was covered in the AMD Gold
    > > Cert I did) .

    >
    > But that was ages ago, back before AMD recommended thermal paste for a TIM
    > instead of a pad. Surely that Gold Star has an expiry date? I thought they
    > were good for six months?


    Yes, it has expired, I didn't say it was current I just said that I did it,
    its not a star, its a cert like I said. Regardless of its value it covered
    this topic. I only mentioned it as it was my 'source' (having a source seems
    to be a big thing on these ng's, people don't seem able to find info
    themselves any more, you have to give it to them). Like you I'm aware its
    not worth a knob of goat shit. You know of a better cert you'd like to
    recommend?
    >
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon

    >
    > You been writing pages on Wiki again to support your arguments? From that
    > article: "....... to be replaced by the cut-down Semprons."
    >
    > > Take the Sempron, it has the best rating,

    >
    > Hey, Gold Star boy, care to explain the Sempron's ratings? You're the man
    > when it comes to AMD CPUs obviously. So, if the XP rationg was intended to
    > indicate how the CPU would perform in comnparison to a Thunderbird CPU,

    what
    > dos the Sempron rating indicate? Quick, better write a page for Wiki and
    > make something up..... Hang on, there's one already and it starts with:
    > "Sempron is AMD's newest low-end CPU, replacing the Duron processor and
    > competing against Intel's Celeron D processor."
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sempron


    The comparison is intended to be for marketing purposes, the Sempron is
    intended to compete with the celeron market, not the celeron cpu
    architecture. Nowhere does it say the Sempron????+ is intended to compete
    with the Celeron?.?Ghz. And AMDs website agrees with what I've said...
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_861_3876,00.html
    Sorry I don't write wiki pages.
    >
    > > and the higher bus speed.

    >
    > You're welcome to your opinion HOG. However, taking the Sempron will be no
    > good to the OP if his mobo or RAM only supports 133MHz FSB now will it?


    Given that graviton hasn't looked at cpus in 5 years its unlikely his
    motherboard will accept anything above a Palomino core (if that) and will
    need replaced even if he has a socket A board.
    >
    > How come you replied to my post instead of just offering an opinion for

    the
    > OP to evaluate?


    The OP will probably refer back to this thread until his mind is made up. It
    will make more sense to the OP if my post regarding your post follows after
    your post.

    Jekyll and Hyde.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >
    Jekyll and Hyde, Nov 17, 2005
    #15
  16. "Impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Jekyll and Hyde" <Jekyll and > wrote in message
    > news:OyDef.1672$...
    > > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > > news:4379846a$...
    > >> graviton wrote:
    > >> > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:dlbsm5$crm$...
    > >> >> graviton wrote:
    > >> >>> Since I have been almost totally out of touch with computer
    > >> >>> hardware
    > >> >>> development for almost 5 years I have no idea if a athlon xp
    > >> >>> 2100+
    > >> >>> or a sempron 2400+ is faster, is there a significant difference
    > >> >>> between the performance of these processors in general? Just a
    > >> >>> rough idea please?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Semprons are the low performance models, Athlons are the good
    > >> >> performance models. I'd probably go for the Athlon.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Cheers,
    > >> >> Nicholas Sherlock
    > >> >
    > >> > Yep except that the athlon is a much older cpu so I wondered if
    > >> > it
    > >> > was still better than the new low end sempron cpu?
    > >>
    > >> Yes, the Athlon is still better. Athlons were rated in comparison
    > >> with
    > >> Pentiums, Semprons are in comparison with Celerons.

    > >
    > > Thats incorrect, as are other contrivances that have appeared, such
    > > as Toms
    > > Hardwares XP????+ = P4???? (where ???? is a cpu speed or rating).
    > > Others
    > > have even suggested that rating is the clock speed + the bus speed.
    > > Athlons
    > > are rated in comparison to the original Thunderbird Athlons, so a
    > > 3800+ will
    > > go as fast as a Thunderbird running at 3800Mhz would have. So far as
    > > I'm
    > > aware the basis of the naming convention has never changed (This was
    > > covered
    > > in the AMD Gold Cert I did) .
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon
    > >
    > > Take the Sempron, it has the best rating, and the higher bus speed.
    > >
    > > Jekyll and Hyde.
    > >
    > >
    > >> Would you rather have a 2.1GHz Pentium or a 2.4GHz Celeron? I'd
    > >> take the
    > >> former everytime. Even if it is a couple years old. They're the
    > >> same basic
    > >> architecture.
    > >>
    > >> What are the rated clock speeds? How much L1 and L2 cache?
    > >>
    > >> Athlon XP2100+ : 1.733GHz, 128k L1, 256k L2.
    > >> Sempron 2400+ : 1.670GHz, 128k L1 256k L2.
    > >>
    > >> So, to answer your question, the Athlon is the faster CPU. Now, if
    > >> you
    > >> wanted to know which would perform better in a system then that's a
    > >> whole
    > >> different question.
    > >>
    > >> The Athlon runs on a 133MHz FSB whereas the Sempron runs on 166MHz.
    > >>
    > >> Six of one, half a dozen of the other. One is a faster CPU on a
    > >> slower

    > > FSB,
    > >> the other is vice-versa. Your choice. IMO other factors would be
    > >> the
    > >> deciders. Does the mobo support 166MHz FSB? How are they priced or
    > >> do you
    > >> already have them? Do you have RAM that will run at 166?
    > >>
    > >> Yada yada yada.
    > >> --

    >
    > It all comes down to benchmarks. Say what you will about the opinions
    > expressed at Tom's Hardware, but the hard information they provide is
    > unbeatable. Here you can choose from any number of respected
    > benchmarks and directly compare the performance of most AMD and Intel
    > processors.


    Yeah, Toms is okay. But I'll never forget when he said something like "the
    idea of integrating the 2D and 3D graphics cards into one 2D/3D card is
    doomed to fail" (something like that anyways).

    >

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=81&model2=74&chart=14
    >
    > For example, compare the Athlon XP 2800+ to the Sempron 2800+. I think
    > you'll find that in every case the Athlon XP outperforms the Sempron
    > by a considerable margin. Whether this difference matters in the real
    > world to someone buying a processor with a specific purpose, and a
    > specific budget, in mind is a whole other matter. But there is no
    > excuse for claiming an equivalence that just isn't there.


    Oddities like this do happen, same has happened with some Intel cpus where
    the new core at the same Mhz has been slower than the old core (due to cache
    changes etc). AMD assign the ????+ rating based on their analysis of each
    cpu, which has usually turned out about right.

    > Of course, all bets are off if you try to fit square pegs into round
    > holes -- the assumption in these benchmarks is that you are using a
    > motherboard and ram that makes full use of the processor's
    > capabilities. Bus speed is only half the story, so it's seldom wise to
    > upgrade a cpu without upgrading the other components as well.


    Yes, again this is why I'd go with the rating that AMD assigned the cpu and
    let them do the math.

    Jekyll and Hyde.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Nov 17, 2005
    #16
  17. graviton

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:

    > HOG? wtf??


    If you aren't the poster who used to post here uinder the name of H.O.G.
    then I apologise. You sound so similar, touting your AMD Gold Cert and
    making unsupportable statements about AMD CPUs, trying to justify them with
    Wiki and quotes from sites that deal with different model CPUs.

    I don't have the inclination to find a HOG post and compare headers so I'll
    take your word for it. You do sound a lot like him though and your
    appearance and his disappearance were within about a month of each other.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 17, 2005
    #17
  18. graviton

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:437b1459$...


    > "Sempron is AMD's newest
    >> low-end CPU, replacing the Duron processor and competing against
    >> Intel's Celeron D processor."
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sempron

    >
    > The comparison is intended to be for marketing purposes, the Sempron
    > is intended to compete with the celeron market, not the celeron cpu
    > architecture. Nowhere does it say the Sempron????+ is intended to
    > compete with the Celeron?.?Ghz. And AMDs website agrees with what
    > I've said...
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_861_3876,00.html


    As I said in my reply to your other post where you trotted out this same
    URL; The page refers to Athlons, not Semprons.

    Apples and Oranges old son.

    > Given that graviton hasn't looked at cpus in 5 years its unlikely his
    > motherboard will accept anything above a Palomino core (if that) and
    > will need replaced even if he has a socket A board.


    Really? Sounds like you know lots. I must pull this T'bred B out of this ~5
    year old board quickly. Obviously it shouldn't be running in there. That
    BIOS update I did must have been bullshit.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 17, 2005
    #18
  19. "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:437c3ace$...
    > Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >
    > > HOG? wtf??

    >
    > If you aren't the poster who used to post here uinder the name of H.O.G.
    > then I apologise.


    Thanks.

    > You sound so similar, touting your AMD Gold Cert and


    Quoting a source and 'touting' are quite a bit different, that is indeed the
    first time I've ever bothered mentioning it, and only because it was the
    source of my info.

    > making unsupportable statements about AMD CPUs, trying to justify them

    with
    > Wiki and quotes from sites that deal with different model CPUs.


    Yep I was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The correct info is here...
    Q: What does the model number format for the AMD Sempron processors
    represent?

    A: Model numbers for the AMD Sempron processor help consumers evaluate
    the performance of their processor for everyday computing applications and
    make a more informed processor choice. The AMD Sempron processor employs
    model numbers based upon a suite of leading, recognized third-party
    benchmarks. These benchmarks are indicators of real-world performance for
    everyday software applications. AMD strives to deliver performance through
    leading-edge technologies and innovations. Customers experience the benefit
    of these technologies and innovations through improved performance and a
    better overall computing experience.

    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_861_11546~88040,00.html#88090

    Looks like they're basing the Semprons PR+ rating on random numbers now,
    pretty strange. At least when they were T'bird comparisons it was a baseline
    but now...?? I try to keep up with the cpu news, I'm very surprised this
    daft idea didn't attract a lot of bad press.

    Jekyll and Hyde.

    >
    > I don't have the inclination to find a HOG post and compare headers so

    I'll
    > take your word for it. You do sound a lot like him though and your
    > appearance and his disappearance were within about a month of each other.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >
    Jekyll and Hyde, Nov 17, 2005
    #19
  20. graviton

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:437c3ace$...
    >> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >>
    >>> HOG? wtf??

    >>
    >> If you aren't the poster who used to post here under the name of
    >> H.O.G. then I apologise.

    >
    > Thanks.


    No problem.

    >> You sound so similar, touting your AMD Gold Cert and

    >
    > Quoting a source and 'touting' are quite a bit different, that is
    > indeed the first time I've ever bothered mentioning it, and only
    > because it was the source of my info.


    And yet you admitted it had expired. Not very up-to-date info huh?

    >> making unsupportable statements about AMD CPUs, trying to justify
    >> them with Wiki and quotes from sites that deal with different model
    >> CPUs.

    >
    > Yep I was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The correct info is here...


    Kudos to you. It takes guts to admit when you're wrong. (Even if it did take
    a while. :) )

    > Q: What does the model number format for the AMD Sempron
    > processors represent?
    >
    > A: Model numbers for the AMD Sempron processor help consumers
    > evaluate the performance of their processor for everyday computing
    > applications and make a more informed processor choice. The AMD
    > Sempron processor employs model numbers based upon a suite of
    > leading, recognized third-party benchmarks. These benchmarks are
    > indicators of real-world performance for everyday software
    > applications. AMD strives to deliver performance through leading-edge
    > technologies and innovations. Customers experience the benefit of
    > these technologies and innovations through improved performance and a
    > better overall computing experience.
    >
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_861_11546~88040,00.html#88090


    Finally! Thank you. The very next question and (part) answer is the one
    relative to this original thread topic:

    "Q: Do the model numbers of the AMD Sempron processors represent performance
    relative to the AMD Athlon processors?

    A: No."

    In other words, my original reply comparing clock speed, cache size and bus
    speed is the only realistic way to compare AthlonXPs with Semprons. The
    cores (for the Socket A variants at least) are basically the same. Only the
    name has changed (and the PR number has been increased by about 50%).

    Also, AMD have a history of making up PR numbers that pre-dates the
    Thunderbird considerably. The first time they used a 'PR number' that was
    different to the actual clock-speed was for their K5 PR120 which ran at
    90MHz. It originally stood for 'performance rating' and, coincidently, the
    PR number of the CPU was around the same speed in MHz of the equivalent
    Pentium. (Integer performance better, floating-point worse, it averaged
    out). It was only with the Athlon XP range, when AMD ressurected the PR
    numbers, that they claimed that the PR number related to the Thunderbird.
    There was speculation then that the T'bird explaination was damage control,
    most people didn't like the whole PR number thing. Seems they've changed
    again huh?

    Interesting that Intel have now gone down the same route, having model
    numbers instead of naming their CPUs by speed in MHz. One interpretation
    could be that AMD were visionary, pre-dating Intel's move to 'PR' numbers by
    some 6 years.

    > Looks like they're basing the Semprons PR+ rating on random numbers
    > now, pretty strange. At least when they were T'bird comparisons it
    > was a baseline but now...??


    I'm still of the opinion that the whole PR number being based on T'birds was
    just an excercise in damage control and gave them free reign to name their
    CPUs as they saw fit, keeping them close to competing Pentiums.

    > I try to keep up with the cpu news, I'm
    > very surprised this daft idea didn't attract a lot of bad press.


    It did. It was mentioned all over the web, that was my whole point when you
    were saying that it was based on Thunderbird comparisons. That went south
    with the AthlonXP range. Semprons are and always have been a whole different
    kettle of fish. Most informed sites speculate that the PR+ ratings are in
    fact roughly comparable to Celeron Ds of the same speed in MHz. And we all
    know how gutless the Celeron Ds are.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 17, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Diehard

    will faster cpu speed up dvd movie back up?

    Diehard, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    722
    arnaud
    Dec 12, 2003
  2. Sigi Rindler

    Which CPU is faster?

    Sigi Rindler, Jun 28, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    696
    Sigi Rindler
    Jun 30, 2007
  3. Enkidu

    What's the faster CPU....

    Enkidu, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    631
    ~misfit~
    Jul 13, 2003
  4. Aspiringpsychopath

    AMD 64 CPU's , P4 Faster..?

    Aspiringpsychopath, Dec 14, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    429
    Bruce Sinclair
    Dec 14, 2004
  5. graviton
    Replies:
    56
    Views:
    1,094
Loading...

Share This Page