General Usage and Content Creation Performance

As the graph clearly shows right off the bat, the new Sempron line of processors leads Intel's latest Celeron offerings. Also, the A64 2800+ and Sempron 3100+ are performing on par in these test, as are the AXP 2600+ and Sempron 2800+ (as we thought they would).

Business Winstone 2004

Content Creation Winstone 2004

The Test DivX 5.1 Encoding
POST A COMMENT

55 Comments

View All Comments

  • abrogard - Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - link


    I think there's something should sweep through the internet: Clearly labelling the country of origin of your site! It's not clear which country we are in, often, and therefore what money we're talking.
    Followed by clearly dating the page.
    abrogard@yahoo.com
    :)
    Reply
  • cleanjew - Friday, January 14, 2005 - link

    Hi, can someone tell me if it would be a good idea to buy a computer running an amd sepron 3000+, i would be using it to run mid range games, and i would like to use internet and productivity software at a fast speed. Do you also think it would be faster than a celeron and comparable to a p4?

    Thanks

    If you want you could email me at jewish-mexican@charter.net
    Reply
  • trexpesto - Saturday, August 21, 2004 - link

    I just got a Shuttle AN35N and retail TBred 2700+ for ~119 incl. shipping and tax, on sale at outpost. Reply
  • Sparrow - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link

    But in the test he say's that the extra 83 MHz make the difference !!!
    Jens
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link

    I am guessing Anandtech was using the Barton based 2600+, you know the one with 1.92GHZ/333FSB. Reply
  • Sparrow - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link

    ???? If a Sempron 2800+ is a Thoroughbred (166*12) and the xp 2600+ is a Thoroughbred (166*12.5) why can the Sempron be faster in some test's ? an error or are there some changes in memory speed ????? !!!!!!
    Jens
    Reply
  • MAME - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link

    awesome AMD, just awesome

    this chip is very nice
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link

    Hey Trogdor, notice I can post here now too:)

    Anyway, just to sum up I would like to see these processor as well.

    Athlon XP-M Barton @ 2.3,2.4,2.5 using 200x11.5, 200x12, 200x12.5

    Celeron Northwood-128
    2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8

    Celeron Prescott-256
    2.4,2.53,2.66,2.8

    Duron Applebred
    1.4,1.8

    Pentium 4 Northwood, Prescott
    2.8 with FSB800
    Reply
  • Zebo - Thursday, July 29, 2004 - link

    oh LOL:) Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Thursday, July 29, 2004 - link

    Woah, KF... that was a whole lot of stuff to post, quite a bit of it rather unrelated. You must have even more free time than me! ;)

    Zebo, you apparently missed the point completely: "The overlapping Athlon FX, Athlon 64, and now Sempron names is going to really cause confusion among the *less-informed* public." The less-informed public doesn't include anyone reading hardware sites or OC forums. Yeah, Sempron is the value system meant to compete with Celeron, but both AMD and Intel are happy to sell lots of slower, "crippled" chips to the uninformed buyers. The 2.8 GHz Celeron chips were absolutely terrible performers - about as fast as a P4 1.8 or 2.0 - but Intel was more than happy to dupe people into purchasing those with their high clockspeed. The Celeron D is better, but the tactic remains the same. AMD is now joining them, calling lesser processors "3100+" and "2800+" and leaving it to the salespeople.

    You don't think there are going to be plenty of salespeople pushing these systems with claims like "the Sempron 2800+ is basically just as fast as a 2.8 GHz chip, and the only difference between it and the Athlon 64 2800+ is the lack of 64-bit support, which really isn't needed anyway"? In sales, it's a lot more important to get a sale than to get a big sale. They'll shoot for the big sales if possible, but when someone wants a cheap system, they'll talk up the Sempron (and/or Celeron) as though it's just as good as a more expensive Athlon64/Pentium4.

    That's what I meant when I said it's creating confusion, and that the confusion is likely to be an intended consequence. Car manufacturers do the same thing: you don't want an informed purchaser coming in to buy a car! You want the salesman to have the advantage, so that they can get the buyer into *any* Ford, Chevy, Honda, etc. and keep them from going to a different store.

    Most PC shos (and car dealerships) make a set amount of money off of a sale, because the hard drives, case, monitor, RAM, etc. all have markups. So if someone buys a computer, the shop makes at least $100. $100 on a $500 computer is a good return. If they buy a $1000 computer, they might make $150 to $200. Granted, on the "luxury" computer systems that cost over $2000, they'll make a killing, but those are hardly ever sold.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now