Author Topic: AMD64 single core vs. AMD Sempron (Read 547 times)

Tigger29 · « **on:** January 28, 2007, 11:33:37 PM »

I'm about to order parts for a new computer.. I'm going with "last years" technology as I don't really have the needs for a core-duo system, nor do I want to spend money on a PCI Express video card.. just have a couple of questions.

1> I'm considering an A64 3800+ processor (939) single core... 2.6? ghz i believe. Well this really give me any speed improvements over a 32 bit processor (such as a Sempron)? (I will be using XP Home 32bit) or do I need a 64bit version of OS to take advantage of it?

2> The motherboard will support both AGP 8x and PCI-express cards (has both slots).. well my high-end AGP card outperform a budget PCI-e card?

3> This will be my first experience with a SATA hard drive.. any installation tips? Especially with Windows.. I'm assuming I'll need to copy the drivers to a floppy and F1 during the installation.. anything else?

4> Will 2GB of ram be any benefit to me over 1GB of ram? My last system before it got fried was an XP2200 AMD with 768MB ram and seemed just a tad bit on the slow side.. Mostly this system will be used for AHII and Sims2.. but when I do browse the internet I tend to have 5 to 8 windows open at any given time.

5> Will this faster system help me win Freecell more often, given the performance benefits?

It should seem lightning fast to me regardless, being I've been stuck on the POS 450MHz Monorail system for the last several months!

eagl · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:22:14 AM »

Do NOT buy a sempron of any sort. They are slower than real AMD64 chips. It has nothing to do with the 32/64bitness of the cpu, rather the sempron has almost no cache memory and it causes a significant performance hit.

At the low end where you'd be thinking about getting a sempron, a real A64 is only about $20 more anyhow so get a real A64.

On a motherboard with both AGP and PCI-e slots, a high-end AGP card probably will outperform a budget PCI-e card.

If you're worried about saving $20 between a sempron and A64, don't bother with 2 gig of memory. If you can afford 2 gig of memory, then you might as well go with a core2 duo and that nifty asrock motherboard I mentioned in airscrew's upgrade thread, that has an AGP and pci-e slot plus can use either DDR or DDR2 memory.

If you're on a budget, stick with a budget. If you have money for 2 gig memory, get a nicer cpu/mobo first in my opinion. A core2 duo E6400 plus that asrock mobo is under $300, you can reuse all your other existing components, and it will be no-kidding twice as fast as an A64-3800.

RELIC · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2007, 12:23:06 PM »

Are you building totally from scratch or trying to reuse parts you already have? It's difficult to answer your questions without knowing the answer to that.
One thing comes to mind right away is the better "bang for the buck" that PCI-Express X16 cards have over AGP. In other words $150 will get you more card in the PCI format - so if you are getting a new card and your motherboard supports both formats then it would make sense to go with PCI but again, maybe you already have an AGP card.
As for memory. I have a socket 939 system and started out with just one 512 stick which was ok. Then I added another 512 stick and got a matching stick so it would run in dual channel - saw a definite improvement. Finally I sold both the 512 sticks and got two matching 1 GB sticks for a total of 2 GB. This gave me enough RAM to check the "load into system memory"option (at the sign on screen video settings) and that made the game much smoother for me - especially in furball situations where there are 20 or 30 planes in the vicinity.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:13:55 PM »

So the AMD Sempron is the equivalent to the Intel Celeron?

Wes14 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:16:33 PM »

I have a Intel Celeron-D processor:noid

if it is identical..i would say not to get it

eagl · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2007, 05:05:41 PM »

Sempron and Celeron are equivalent in that they're both crippled "value" versions of the mainstream AMD and Intel cpus, yes... That doesn't make them the same

Some people have found that the semprons and celerons make great overclockers and therefore are awesome for specific applications that require very little cache and lots of cheap cpu cycles (ie. many distributed computing projects).

For me and I think most gamers and many regular users, semprons and celerons are simply not worth it. You save between $20 and $50 from the top end sempron and low end A64 and get low-end performance as a result.

Oh yea... You can sometimes save even more because semprons (for example) come on socket 754 mobos and those are typically $10-$30 cheaper than equivalent socket 939 or AM2 mobos. But now you're really scrabbling for the bottom of the line and you lose dual channel memory too. I'd rather spend the tiny bit more (in a major buildup, I consider $100 investment in current technology a "tiny bit more") and get a non-crippled cpu and mobo.

Wes14 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2007, 05:57:44 PM »

yea is their a better CPU then what i got thats still budget able:confused: ?

Tigger29 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2007, 09:14:11 PM »

I'm not actually considering a sempron... I know better than that

I was just saying for comparison sakes... is a 64 bit processor going to outperform an "equivalent" 32 bit processor when I'm not using a 64 bit OS.

I know computers like the back of my hand.. just kind of "fell out" of the technology curve about the time the Athlon XP processors became obsolete.

I have a nice AGP card I had just purchased a couple weeks before my motherboard gave out on me, and I'd like to keep using it.. and I don't care about an "upgradeable" motherboard as a Motherboard swap is no big deal for me... I'll be purchasing "yesterday" technology components to stay under budget, as I'm still a bit financially strapped.

The motherboard I'm looking at has both AGP 8x and PCIe slots, supports A64 3800+ max (which is what I intend on using), and 2GB DDR 333 ram.

I'll be reusing my DVD and CDRW drives, my AGP video card, wireless NIC card, XP Home software, and probably my IDE 80GB hard drive (for music/video storage - non speed necessary files), and case fans.

I plan on purchasing Case/MB/PS, RAM, Processor/Fan, and SATA 120GB hard drive (for OS and program files), and can get all that for under $350.

Onboard sound is fine for me, as I usually use a USB surround sound headset for gaming anyway.

Nomak · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2007, 09:15:22 PM »

Just FYI..... PCIe isnt really any better than 8Xagp. This is from THG....

" The newest and highest-bandwidth interconnect is the PCI Express bus. New graphics cards typically use the PCI Express x16 specification that combines 16 separate PCI Express links (or lanes) to reach as much as 4 GB/s bandwidth. This is twice the bandwidth of AGP 8x. PCI Express offers this bandwidth both for uploading data to the computer and downloading to the graphics cards. However, the AGP 8x specification is still so adequate that we have not seen an example of a PCI Express graphics card performing better than an AGP 8x model (assuming all other hardware and parameters are equal). For example, an AGP version of a GeForce 6800 Ultra will perform identically to a PCI Express 6800 Ultra. "

That being said, If you can run either....... use PCIE. They are cheaper.

If I were building a new budget system I would use a PentD 805 Dual core. Its the same sockett (LGA 775) as the core 2 duo and is a monster overclocker. Not to mentionn its dirt cheap. You can get one from Newegg for around $80. Then if you have more funds down the road you can step up to the Conroe. With a $70 Zalman air cooler I was running my D805 @4.0 Gig. 3.6 Gig is childs play on one of those. Should easly out perform the AMD's you are looking at and cost less.

Dave

RELIC · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2007, 11:24:39 PM »

In regard to the question, "is a 64 bit processor going to outperform an "equivalent" 32 bit processor when I'm not using a 64 bit OS?" the answer is no. I'm not even sure you'd see a significant difference if you had the 64 bit OS.
That being said, I think Nomak makes a valid point for the LGA 775 socket in the hopes of a future upgrade to Conroe BUT there is the question of how RAM will factor in the equation. The LGA 775 MB's I saw on Newegg that support AGP for the vid card, AND both the Pent 805D and the newer Conroe CPU's, offer two slots for 184 pin DDR 400 memory and two slots for 240 pin DDR2 533. If I were looking at these boards I'd question the performance hit that might be down the road by using that memory. It might be pretty insignificant but the whole point of looking at LGA 775 is having a foundation to build on. Whether or not that RAM will be a bottleneck in the future is beyond my level of knowledge - I'm sure someone in here could tell you. BUT it sounds like you pretty much decided on using the 3800+ so perhaps this is not an issue!
As for a new case, well that is often a matter of asthetics but if you want a basic case that doesn't look like it was designed by aliens then let me recommend this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811119047
I used that for my last build and liked it a lot.

Good luck!

Vulcan · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2007, 12:41:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RELIC
In regard to the question, "is a 64 bit processor going to outperform an "equivalent" 32 bit processor when I'm not using a 64 bit OS?" the answer is no. I'm not even sure you'd see a significant difference if you had the 64 bit OS.

Ahhh err not true in reality. The AMD 64 bit CPU's outperform the 32 bit CPU's running a 32 bit O/S. There are lots of reasons why (cpu cache, internal bus's, etc). While your answer may fit a 'hypothetical' scenario in reality is what we technical types call bollocks.

eagl · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:12:18 AM »

vulcan,

The only reason why the A64 outperforms other "32 bit" processors is because the A64 was a complete redesign and it is inherently more efficient than the previous generation of cpus.

If you take a current A64 (64 bit) and sempron (nearly identical design but 32 bit only and with less cache), the sempron will be clock for clock almost identical to the A64 for everything that does not require the extra cache memory that the A64 has over the sempron.

So your answer, while 'in practice' true, is what we computer science degree types call bollocks

Just kidding. But seriously, the A64's performance advantage over older 32 bit cpu designs in existing 32 bit applications has not one single thing to do with the 64 bit design of the cpu. It has everything to do with the fact that it was a next-generation design.

For that matter, clock for clock a last-gen 32 bit Pentium M will run circles around a similiarly clocked and powered A64, and if the core 2 duo was an entirely 32 bit design it would still trounce the A64 in 32 bit apps.

Compare sempron performance with A64 performance in benchmarks that fit within the L1 and L2 cache, and you'll see what I'm talking about. That's why overclockers and distributed computing fiends occasionally build up number crunchers using these budget cpus, because those are the rare occasions where the overclockability and price makes up for the lack of L2 cache.

Nomak · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2007, 08:06:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RELIC
...... The LGA 775 MB's I saw on Newegg that support AGP for the vid card, AND both the Pent 805D and the newer Conroe CPU's, offer two slots for 184 pin DDR 400 memory and two slots for 240 pin DDR2 533. If I were looking at these boards I'd question the performance hit that might be down the road by using that memory. It might be pretty insignificant but the whole point of looking at LGA 775 is having a foundation to build on. Whether or not that RAM will be a bottleneck in the future is beyond my level of knowledge - I'm sure someone in here could tell you. BUT it sounds like you pretty much decided on using the 3800+ so perhaps this is not an issue!
As for a new case, well that is often a matter of asthetics but if you want a basic case that doesn't look like it was designed by aliens then let me recommend this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811119047
I used that for my last build and liked it a lot.

Good luck!

The Conroe uses a FSB of 1066. So long as DDR2 is used 533 is actually perfect. i.e. DDR2=533x2=1066. There would be no performance gain using say DDR2800 on a 1066FSB. Unless of course the intent is to overclock past a 1066 FSB. 1 gig of CorsairXMS would be plenty and could then be overclocked with greater FSB settings if and when he wanted to overclock the Conroe. I would recommend 2 sticks of 512 as that allows the "2" in DDR2 to work, hence making the 533 perfect. Also 2 sticks of 512 can be run at tighter timings as opposed to 1 gig sticks.

To me it just doesnt make sense to buy AMD right now. Intel can be done just as cheap and has a much better upgrade path.

If you need help picking out an LGA775 mother board just say so.

Dave

RELIC · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2007, 09:01:38 AM »

eagl

Dave, thanks for the info. I was wondering what if any effect that DDR2 533 would have over running DDR2 800 (or even higher as they continue to increase the speeds). I assume the RAM won't run as "fast" but you can lower the timings as a tradeoff?
I have been an AMD fan for years but I agree - Intel is the way to go right now especially if you are looking for upgradeability.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2007, 09:34:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RELIC
eagl

Dave, thanks for the info. I was wondering what if any effect that DDR2 533 would have over running DDR2 800 (or even higher as they continue to increase the speeds). I assume the RAM won't run as "fast" but you can lower the timings as a tradeoff?
I have been an AMD fan for years but I agree - Intel is the way to go right now especially if you are looking for upgradeability.

If you do not plan to overclock, when you shop for ram buy low latency, not high PC rating. The rated speed is enough, with low latency you can tighten the memory timings and achieve marginal speed benefits.