In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D. The story is the same in LightWave rendering. This Socket CPU runs at 3. In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely.
|Date Added:||9 February 2016|
|File Size:||33.54 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Now we turn to actual performance using real applications. We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. With a serious advantage in cache size, semron would expect the Athlon 64 to perform better, but it also costs more.
List of AMD Sempron microprocessors – Wikipedia
We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still. The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options.
The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster. In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely. Also, we used the rundll The hard drives were defragged prior to each major benchmark run.
This Socket CPU runs at 3. Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. We extract two of the multithreading results from PCMark05 for one set of multitasking numbers, then run Photoshop Elements and Norton AntiVirus simultaneously as another test.
In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit. All make fairly heavy use of the processor and memory subsystem.
List of AMD Sempron microprocessors
The smaller cache and lower pin count of Socket help AMD produce Sempron chips much more cheaply, and the small die size in combination with reduced 340 speeds makes for a cooler-running chip, too.
There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional.
We can say this, though: The story is the same in LightWave rendering. PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive.
AMD Sempron + / GHz processor Overview – CNET
It runs at 2. The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge. We used Adobe After Effects 6. The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D.
AMD Sempron 3400+ / 1.8 GHz processor Series
The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel.
Sure, the Athlon 64 with its larger cache and larger price tag is faster than the Sempron, but the budget chip still manages to hold its own, and it just creams the Celeron D. Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved sempronn support. The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. AMD has a winner here, despite the relatively high price.
The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D. AMD has moved the Sempron line away from Socket A and all the motherboard eccentricities that went along with it, so we have no problem recommending it for low-cost machines.