When AMD offered to send us their latest Sempron CPU for review, we honestly felt a little ashamed - we had almost entirely forgotten about the budget CPU that launched last June. Had we missed other Sempron reviews since its launch? Were we too tied up in the higher end desktop processors and the dual core migration to pay attention to AMD's brand new budget line? After a moment's panic, we calmed ourselves and realized something that had surprised us a bit - AMD hadn't released a faster Socket-754 Sempron since its launch in June 2004. Not a single new CPU in ten and a half months. We stopped feeling so bad.

Intel was slightly better, but not by much. After our original review of the 90nm Celeron D, Intel released one more CPU, the Celeron D 345, late last year, but it's been quiet since then. And we thought the mainstream CPU race had slowed down.

So, it was time for an updated comparison, but luckily, the field hadn't changed much - or had it? Remembering back to our original Sempron review, AMD initially introduced two Semprons: a Socket-A and an Socket-754 version. The Socket-A version has topped out at 3000+ (2.0GHz) and it doesn't look like there's any future beyond it for the aging platform. The Socket-754 platform has yet to out-live its welcome and thus, AMD's newest Sempron, the Sempron 3300+, is a Socket-754-only CPU. The Socket-754 Sempron is based on AMD's K8 architecture, but is a 32-bit only CPU (no x64 support here). As a Socket-754 CPU, the Sempron only features a single channel DDR400 memory controller.

Intel's Celeron D 345 was merely a clock bump to the Celeron D 335 that we reviewed last June, bringing Intel's fastest Celeron up to 3.06GHz while still remaining on the 533MHz FSB. AMD's Sempron 3300+ isn't as simple of a transition, however. The original Socket-754 Sempron was built on a 130nm process and featured a 256KB L2 cache, whereas the new Sempron 3300+ is built on AMD's 90nm process and features a 128KB L2 cache. The new Sempron also features all of the enhancements that made it into the 90nm Athlon 64 processors - mainly SSE3 support and some enhancements to the memory controller.

The higher rating is due to a higher clock speed; the Sempron 3300+ runs at 2.0GHz compared to the 3100+'s 1.8GHz clock. But with half of the L2 cache, the performance picture is bound to be much more interesting than just a regular clock bump.

With only a 128KB L2 cache, the Sempron 3300+ is definitely a step back in terms of the cache sizes that we expect to see on modern day microprocessors. At the same time, halving the cache while moving to a smaller process ensures that AMD can enjoy larger profit margins on these new Sempron CPUs. But AMD's profit margins aren't our concern here; what we care about is how the 3300+ performs and going one step further, a cool running 90nm chip with a very small 128KB L2 cache is quite attractive to the overclocker in us.

With an on-die memory controller, the Socket-754 Semprons can get away with having relatively small L2 caches, since their main memory access latencies are very low to begin with. But even if we estimate that the on-die memory controller of a Sempron reduces memory accesses to around ~120 cycles, an access from L2 cache is going to still take about 1/10th that. In the end, while AMD's K8 architecture is less dependent on large caches, it is still not impervious to the impact that a small one can have.

Priced at $127, the Sempron 3300+ is priced similarly to Intel's Celeron D 345 ($133) and the Athlon 64 3000+ ($140). That being said, let's see how it competes...

The Test

AMD Athlon 64 Configuration

Socket-939 Athlon 64 CPUs
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
MSI nForce4 SLI Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT PCI Express

AMD Sempron Configuration

Socket-754 Sempron CPUs
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
ABIT NF8 nForce3 Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT AGP

Intel Celeron D Configuration

LGA-775 Intel Celeron D 345 (3.06GHz)
2 x 512MB Crucial DDR-II 533 Dual Channel DIMMs 3-3-3-12
Intel 915P Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT PCI Express

Business/General Use Performance
Comments Locked

53 Comments

View All Comments

  • johnsonx - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    AMD's web site implies that Cool'n'Quiet works with S754 Semprons (for example when you click on downloads for the Sempron processors, you get several revisions of the AMD cpu driver that claim to enable Cool'n'Quiet). However I've tried enabling it on a couple of S2600's, and have had no luck. I had no trouble getting it to work on my A64 2800+, so I assume that Semprons in fact do have cool'n'quiet disabled.

    I think this is stupid of course, but my opinion of what's stupid obviously carries little weight with AMD...
  • randomman - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    Nitpick: Xvid isn't at Version 5 - the lastest stable is 1.0 and beta is at 1.1. Which is it?
  • Jep4444 - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    Palermo which is based off of Venice
  • AsiLuc - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    Is this the Venice or the Winchester core?
  • Jep4444 - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    beat me to it eBauer, the A64 2800+ really should have been tested(ive yet to see anyone use one in a comparison versus the Sempron 3300+ yet which has been annoying me)
  • overclockingoodness - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    #19 AtaStrumf:
    "As for X800XT distorting the gaming value CPU picture, I think this is something worth thinking about. Maybe you should include a test with a 6600GT, just to see if a more expensive CPU, coupled with a value graphics card actually makes any difference."

    Uh, that doesn't make any sense. You won't be able to compare the high-end and low-end chips since they will perform identially on the mid-end graphics solutions. Regardless of how fast the FX55 is, when you add that with a 6600GT - the performance will degrade. Besides, all high end chips will perform almost exactly the same because GPU will be the bottleneck.

    What part of bottleneck do you guys not get?
  • Zebo - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    Those complaining about overclocks...as usual YMMV, don't take one site as gospel, all chips clock differently. Best resource to get an accurate representation is internet forums to get a cross section of the pioneers who took the chance for y'all. Another thing to keep in mind is Anandtech is'nt xtremesystems, they use safe low volts, and go for real stability, basically your average guy type overclock not screenshot overclocks.
  • Zebo - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    Makes you wonder what an AMD FX with 2MB lvl2 Cache would do???
  • eBauer - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    I would have liked to see a A64 2800+ thrown into a mix, especially considering it shares roughly the same price as the new sempron 3300+.

    Including the 2800+ would have given readers a clear view on why the 3000/3200 939 cpus had the advantage (if it were due to the 512k cache, dual channel memory, or a combination of the two)






  • Avalon - Monday, April 18, 2005 - link

    My sempy 2800+ did 2.72ghz on 1.55v, so Anand must have gotten a real dud of a chip. Also, to those wondering about HTPC applications for this chip. I'm pretty positive that CnQ is disabled for semprons, and only available for the A64 line. I've been starting to realize more and more that dual channel is really beneficial to gaming on the K8 platform. There really does seem to be no reason to grab a s754 Sempron anymore, since they don't offer any significant price savings. I'm still glad I got to play with one, but I'll be much happier with a dual channel Venice.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now