The AMD Sempron (NON-64) just an Athlon XP with a new name?
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
The AMD Sempron (NON-64) just an Athlon XP with a new name?
I have a sempron lying around my room that I pulled out of my computer when I pluged my AMD Athlon XP 3000+ in. But I wondered what exactly is a sempron? So I took some time and researched it, found most of the information (who knows how how much of it is fact) at wikipedia.org. From what I understand, the new low end processors for AMD that replaced the Duron are just about equivlent to standard AMD Athlon XP processors (exluding Sempron 64, which from what I understand is not the real name). The clock speed on the 3000+, which I am using so it parallel with my AMD Athlon XP 3000+, is only a 100 or so Mhz slower then my Athlon. And I also noticed that it is cheaper by sometimes upwards of 60 dollars. I'm not processor detail savy, but, how much of a difference is there in specs and performance are there between my Athlon XP 3000+ and the Sempron 3000+ Socket A?
For easy comparison, the sempron competes with the intel celeron line of CPUs. I believe the athlon CPUs are still in comparison with intel pentium CPUs.
Last edited by corbintechboy; 05-20-2006 at 12:39 PM.
So that means that I could have bought a sempron 3000+ for less then my Athlon and I could have more or less the same performance? Or am I still ignorant about something?
Distribution: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2; Slackware Linux 10.2
Posts: 215
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RHLinuxGUY
So that means that I could have bought a sempron 3000+ for less then my Athlon and I could have more or less the same performance? Or am I still ignorant about something?
All depends on what you want to do. If you don't use any advanced and intensive applications, then they will both essentially give you the same performance. In that case you should go with the Sempron. If you play games and use highly intensive programs, it's most certainly worth the money to go with an Athlon. Just compare this situation to your choice between Celeron and Pentium. It's more-or-less the same debate.
SEMPRON 3200+ 64 bit Gateway (sis in law)
512 gig ddr ram
100gb ide drive
Fresh install of windowsXP service pack 2 boot times:
me=18secs
bro=30secs
sis=58secs
multi tasking launching firefox while in doom3:
me=40secs
bro=12secs
sis=1minute2secs
The pentium multi tasks a little better then my athlon due to hyper threading. On single apps I woop my bro-in-law at about everything. Doom3 launches on mine about 6 secs faster on mine then on pent, sempron is way out there with times at around 45 secs slower then mine. I know this might not hold any water as far as a benchmark but I tell you for sure the sempron is by far the slowest of the 3!
Distribution: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2; Slackware Linux 10.2
Posts: 215
Rep:
I wouldn't necessarily base your impression of Semprons only on the review above. Different reviewers say very different things. The general consensus I've seen seems to be that the Celeron and Sempron are about equal. But do your own research. Tom's Hardware is a good starting point. The processor is a very important piece of hardware so you need to do your research and get multiple opinions.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.