"Wes Newell" wrote in message
news:f6FFf.13338$xs4.1039@trnddc01...
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:47:54 -0800, * * Chas wrote:

I'm building a new Socket A system with an nVidia Nforce2 chipset
and
DDR400 or DDR400-2 memory for use with Win98SE.

I've been looking at Athlon XP 3200+ vs. Sempron 3300+ Socket A
CPUs.
The Athlon XP has 512 cache vs. 256 with the Sempron. Also the
Athlon
runs at 400MHz Vs, 333MHz for the Sempron.

AFAIK, they don't make a socket A Sempron 3300+, only socket 754. And
it
only has 128K L2 cache. L1 cache is the same on all AMD cpu's 64/64K
for
128K. So someone is misleading you claiming 256K cache for the 3300+,
since that includes the L1 cache. Including L1 cache, the 3200+ XP has
640K cache. If you want a socket A Sempron, get the 3000+. It's a
barton
core with 512K cache and a 12 multiplier with a default 166MHz FSB for
2000MHz default. Personally, I think you're wasting your money
building a
new socket A system whehn you can build a faster cheaper socket 754
system
that will run circles around a socket A system.


Thanks for the input.

I'd read so may reviews that I forgat that it was the Sempron 3000+ with
the dumbed down Barton core that performed close to the Athlon XP. Price
watch and a number of others have been listing Socket A Semprons at
3300+ so I figured that they may exist. I remember playing with K6-III
cpus. They came in every flavor from 266 to 450MHz and many had the same
core chip. AMD certainly maximized their yields on those suckers.

I've read conflicting test reports, some saying that there is very
little difference in performance between the two CPUs.

Assuming there is a socket A sempron 3300+, it would compare to about
an
Athlon XP 2900+.

The Athlons are getting very scarce and are running about twice as
much
as the Sempron Socket A CPUs.

Sempron 3000+ socket A is about $100 and won't OC much. A socket 754
Sempron 3100+ is $80, will OC like crazy and put the socket A sempron
to
shame.

I'm not interested in OC or gaming, this is a business system. The next
system I build will be 64bit but for now, this will be my last Win98SE
box. It looks like I'm limited to Socket A boards and CPUs because of no
Win98SE support for PCIe and some of the later chipsets.

I have every version of Windows from Win3.1 to Server 2003 (except ME)
but I prefer Win98SE for most applications. I use premium quality memory
and keep my system files well pruned so my Win98SE systems run rock
solid.

I have 3 laptops running XP Pro for wireless support but generally I
don't care for XP or Win2k. I still do most of my business work on an
old Asus K7M that I built in 1999. It has a 1G T-Bird running 384 MB of
memory plus a 15G HDD! I just want to speed it up a little. I also have
an A7M-266 Atlon XP 1800+ with 768 MB of memory that I run Win98SE and
Win2k on.

The main complaint that I have against the NT based OS's is that when
there is a problem such as a program not responding, it can take well
over 5 minutes to recover and get my system back whereas with Win98SE, I
can do a 3 finger or Reset warm reboot and be back working again in
under 2 minutes. Besides that, I can fix just about any Win98SE problem
in a few minutes where NT can take days to resolve.

Chas.