David Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Im looking to build a cheapish pc just for messing about on and im wondering if semprons are all that bad? There pretty cheap compared to athlon bartons etc but ive noticed there only 256k fsb. WHats the main differences between athlons and semprons. Also ive looked at the new 'Celeron D's'. I wouldnt touch a celeron with a barge pole last time but the new ones look 'ok'.Any help much apreciated. Thanks Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick_spider Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 They're not that bad... but look at the clock speeds: Sempron 2200+ 1.50GHz, 333FSB, 256K Cache Athlon 1700+ 1.47GHz, 266FSB, 256K Cache I doubt there'd be a great deal of difference between the above processors. AMD moved the goalposts when they started naming the CPU's. I guess it all depends on what you'll be using the PC for. Games? Video editing? or just internet/email? Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Well ill be using it for general use and a bit of gaming (Mohaa etc) Can semprons be easily overclocked? Ive heard most motherboards dont recognise them until you flash the bios... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Aint they just a rename of the Thouroughbred B core? Which have half the cache of the later Barton cores? Or do they have other stuff disabled? If so the old T.Bred B cores are great my xp2400 is running nicely at 2.2Ghz :blink: and is not at all like the Durons used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mink Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Aint they just a rename of the Thouroughbred B core? Which have half the cache of the later Barton cores? Or do they have other stuff disabled?← The s754 one are yes. If you're going for socket A (like aAthlonXPs, just get the most expensive AthlonXP you can afford, nd forget about semprons. For S754, I think the semprons are worth looking at though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cultiv8ed_mike Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 They're not that bad... but look at the clock speeds: Sempron 2200+ 1.50GHz, 333FSB, 256K Cache Athlon 1700+ 1.47GHz, 266FSB, 256K Cache I doubt there'd be a great deal of difference between the above processors. AMD moved the goalposts when they started naming the CPU's. I guess it all depends on what you'll be using the PC for. Games? Video editing? or just internet/email? Jon ← If u get pc3200 ram and a DDR400 motherboard you could get it to run at 1.8Ghz (9*200) which its a nice speed boost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank_rider Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 the socket 754 semprons are just 64 bit chips that there is a fault with half of the core so they disable it and run it as a normal 32 bit processor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonney@X-Street Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 im running a 2.8 sempron and i find it runs pretty sweet to be honest, equivilent to a 2400+ xp processor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 The s754 one are yes. If you're going for socket A (like aAthlonXPs, just get the most expensive AthlonXP you can afford, nd forget about semprons. For S754, I think the semprons are worth looking at though... ← Ooops, that was me, on mink's PC. Isn't a Sempron 2800+ more expensive than an AthlonXP 2400+ though? Although stocks of Athlons are running out now anyway. The Sempron 3100+ is based on A64 architecture. The 2800+ and 3000+ are just T'breds though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesR Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 (edited) I have a AMD athlon 2.4+ XP in one comp and a Celeron M in another and they both seem pretty good. Wouldn't like to choose between them. But must say in the 18 month i'v had the athlon its never once gone west on me. *touch wood*... James Edited January 19, 2005 by JamesR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Phaze Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Low end Semprons are just rebadged Athlon XP T-Bred 'B's.... http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/sempron/index.x?pg=1 The 3100+ is a Socket 754 64bit CPU... Socket 462 still has life left in it - my next upgrade will be 64bit CPU in a year or 2 - when 64bit computing actually takes a mainstream reality (hell, the next Windows - Longhorn - isn't even 64bit......) As I'm on Linux, you could argue that an upgrade now would be wise (Many distributions are releasing a 64bit version of their Linux OS) - but I argue against - as most applications are still 32bit.. If u get pc3200 ram and a DDR400 motherboard you could get it to run at 1.8Ghz (9*200) which its a nice speed boost. Provided he has sufficient cooling, and a CPU capable of 200Mhz FSB the socket 754 semprons are just 64 bit chips that there is a fault with half of the core so they disable it and run it as a normal 32 bit processor. Er..... what? It's called a 64bit CPU for a reason.... all 64bits work when needed. You're getting confused - 64bit CPUs can run in 32bit mode if needs be :() i.e. It will run 64bit Linux and 32bit Linux/Windows Sempron 2200+ 1.50GHz, 333FSB, 256K Cache Athlon 1700+ 1.47GHz, 266FSB, 256K Cache I doubt there'd be a great deal of difference between the above processors. You'd be supprised the increase in floating-point calculations with the 50% increase in FSB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biketrialler Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Er..... what? It's called a 64bit CPU for a reason.... all 64bits work when needed. You're getting confused - 64bit CPUs can run in 32bit mode if needs be :() i.e. It will run 64bit Linux and 32bit Linux/Windows ← Sorry but thats just plain shit. Quoting one of the many websites I found on google when trying to back up what im saying... "Unfortunately, in addition to the reduced amount of cache, all of the Semprons lack 64-bit support. That isn't a major concern yet, but it could be in another six months when we see the launch of Windows XP-64 and 64-bit applications. For those that are interested in 64-bit computing, you will want to spend the extra money for the Athlon 64." What was said further up was right, the semprons are crippled, damaged in production 754 a64 chips. They disable the damaged stuff leaving a 32 bit 754 chip to cover the budget end of the market. Please stop trying to be a know it all when you actually dont. No offense meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick_spider Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 You'd be supprised the increase in floating-point calculations with the 50% increase in FSB ← I'm sure I would, but last time I checked 150% of 266 is 400, not 333 :( Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Phaze Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 I'm sure I would, but last time I checked 150% of 266 is 400, not 333 :( Jon ← Doh! So it is, I'm getting confused.... :"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.