Author Topic: Whats the diff? (Read 286 times)

StarOfAfrica2 · « **on:** June 14, 2005, 01:32:50 PM »

I have my suspicions about these poor bastardized pieces of silicon, but I cant find any info to back it up.

When I was shopping for a CPU for the cheapo socket 754 on my kitchen table, I kept seeing these Semprons popping up. I remembered seeing a release a year or so ago about Semprons taking over the Athlon lineup, and being a "transition" chip for the 754s at the same time, but I never paid much attention.

Is this just a turbo-charged Athlon built for a socket 754? The ones I'm looking at are 90nm chips with an 800mhz FSB.

The 64s built for the socket 754 motherboards are all .13 chips, not 90nm. Why? Did the 64s come first, and then the Semprons after as a value thing? If so, why would they bother to make value chips for a motherboard socket design thats being phased out?

Roscoroo · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2005, 12:55:03 AM »

probely because compaq is planing to use all that out dated stuff in a couple of years....when theres no replacement parts

im not shure about the sempron line except it became the buget assy line ..

They really steped backwards there in my opinion ... we had the rock solid morgans ,tbred's , and bartons, now we have this junk line of applebreds and semprons . the wierd thing is a 2500+ sempron is like a 1.7 ghz cpu and doesnt have near the balls to be over clocked like a morgan or barton . (ive got a 1.3 morgan that ive oced to 1.7 befor and it was rock solid on h2O)

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 16, 2005, 01:39:35 AM »

My question is, why would they waste their time building 333mhz FSB processors for the 754 socket motherboards (in 90nm no less) when they wont even build a 90nm Athlon 64 for that motherboard? And how do you end up with a "budget line" XP running at an 800mhz FSB?? Its like, the ONLY advantage to buying a socket 754 was that it allowed the upgrade to the Athlon 64 at a cheap price because they werent going to continue the line. So the motherboards are selling for dirt cheap. Now they want to try to sell us reworked Socket A processors to plug into it as well?? Why would anyone do that? I'm confused.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #3 on:** June 16, 2005, 02:21:41 AM »

i kinda think it has to do with sales and marketing .

here they had a great line w/ the bartons . but they want to sell there top dollar stuff and hold on to the buget/mass builders (compaq,dell,hp,ect) so they offer the three lines .

they steped down the bartons to semprons to get us animals to buy the 64bit cpu's ,but needed to keep the buget cpu's for the mass production . the 754 64 .. gives them something to build with thats faster and will use up those types of cpu's

did i confuzzel you yet ?? i know i almost confused myself lol.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 16, 2005, 02:54:03 AM »

But..........

I still dont get why?

Socket 754 is supposed to be dead! The 939s took over! There are no dual-channel 754 motherboards. There are no 90nm Athlon64 CPUs for 754.

Yet we have 90nm Semprons that still are clocked at a 333mhz FSB, all the way up to an 800mhz FSB?? That belongs in Ripley's! Well, if they had a Ripley's for computer geeks anyway.

My point is not that they are making a budget processor, its that they picked a supposedly dead socket design to introduce them to. Why not make the Semprons in a socket 939 format? Are they planning on keeping the 754 now? If so, will they make newer 90nm 64 CPUs for it? I cant find a thing from AMD or even third party testers that talks about this.