Socket A & 754 Sempron caution.

I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64 3000+.
Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch of the
benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons could have
higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up with an Athlon 64
2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is actually a tbred B core
running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+ tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.30.05.55.35.314919@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64 3000+.
Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch of the
benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons could have
higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up with an Athlon 64
2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is actually a tbred B core
running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+ tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at all. I
recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and CPU, thus you
preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )

Hank Kimball
"I have an important message for you, life or death." .. Ok, what is the
message? "What message?"

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.30.05.55.35.314919@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64 3000+.
Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch of the
benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons could have
higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up with an Athlon 64
2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is actually a tbred B core
running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+ tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.



Yea, The benchark is supposed to be a close to a CeleronD comparision
chart..

Hank Kimball wrote:
"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.30.05.55.35.314919@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64
3000+. Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch
of the benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons
could have higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up
with an Athlon 64 2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is
actually a tbred B core running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+
tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at
all. I recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and
CPU, thus you preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )


Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754 CPU. Can't
really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to upgrade the CPU and
board together.

--
Derek

rstlne wrote:
Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at
all. I recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and
CPU, thus you preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )


Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754
CPU. Can't really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to
upgrade the CPU and board together.

--
Derek


If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with
your skt A (if that's what you have)
the 939 kicks ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the
huge gaps i would tend to belive that it would really affect the
feeling you get)

What benchmarks are you looking at? The ones I've seen show a small
difference between the 3400+ and 3500+.

--
Derek

Derek Baker wrote:
rstlne wrote:
Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at
all. I recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and
CPU, thus you preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )


Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754
CPU. Can't really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to
upgrade the CPU and board together.

--
Derek


If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with
your skt A (if that's what you have)
the 939 kicks ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the
huge gaps i would tend to belive that it would really affect the
feeling you get)

What benchmarks are you looking at? The ones I've seen show a small
difference between the 3400+ and 3500+.

Here's a comparison of the 3400+ and 3500+:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2065&p=15

Though note since then the 3400+ ha slost half it's cache and gained 200Mhz.

--
Derek

Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at
all. I recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and
CPU, thus you preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )


Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754 CPU.
Can't
really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to upgrade the CPU and
board together.

--
Derek


If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with your
skt A (if that's what you have)
the 939 kicks ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the huge gaps
i would tend to belive that it would really affect the feeling you get)

"rstlne" == rstlne writes:

rstlne If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just
rstlne stick with your skt A (if that's what you have) the 939 kicks
rstlne ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the huge
rstlne gaps i would tend to belive that it would really affect the
rstlne feeling you get)


Really. Anyway the few benchmarks I have seen don't show that
significant of a performance difference between 939 vs 754. Could you
kindly send a url that shows these big differences.

Thanks

Alan

"rstlne" wrote
If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with your
skt A (if that's what you have)
the 939 kicks ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the huge
gaps
i would tend to belive that it would really affect the feeling you get)

I read that 939 requires matched pairs of memory. Do they have to be
identical, or can they be different brands of the same type?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

The safest thing to do is to purchase a matched set. Same size, same
speed, and same brand. One of the problems is matching up all the
timing. If you look at the specs for different brands, you will see
they use different timings. And it may well end up being the cheapest.
If you don't go with a matched set and you start having weird
problems, like spontaneous rebooting, you will have to then buy a
matched set to fix your unexplained problems.


Ed Light wrote:
"rstlne" wrote

If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with your
skt A (if that's what you have)
the 939 kicks ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the huge

gaps

i would tend to belive that it would really affect the feeling you get)


I read that 939 requires matched pairs of memory. Do they have to be
identical, or can they be different brands of the same type?