A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Socket A & 754 Sempron caution.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 30th 04, 06:54 AM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #2  
Old July 30th 04, 08:27 AM
Hank Kimball
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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?"



  #3  
Old July 30th 04, 08:27 AM
Hank Kimball
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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?"



  #4  
Old July 30th 04, 10:38 AM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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..



  #5  
Old July 30th 04, 10:38 AM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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..



  #6  
Old July 30th 04, 01:23 PM
Derek Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #7  
Old July 30th 04, 01:23 PM
Derek Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #8  
Old July 30th 04, 01:50 PM
Derek Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #9  
Old July 30th 04, 01:50 PM
Derek Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #10  
Old July 30th 04, 02:15 PM
Derek Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why 2200+ & 2800+ in both model 8 & model 10 Sempron? [email protected] General 3 September 27th 04 05:40 AM
Need low power socket A cpu - would 'laptop' cpu be best? Chris van Bladel General 3 September 18th 04 07:18 AM
Are Heat Sink fans for socket 754 AMD CPU's compatable with the socket 939 Motherboards? Keith S. Overclocking AMD Processors 0 July 4th 04 01:35 PM
"Socket A" vs "Socket 478" (Amd vs Intel) Minstro General 13 March 26th 04 10:59 PM
Socket 7 to Socket A upgrade ? philo General 1 July 17th 03 11:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.