the more interesting result of this pretty good article is that the sempron 2800+ is poor value in comparison to the 2600+. It should probably be renamed the 2700+. The extra cache makes a small difference to the performance, certainly not as much as the extra 200 PR points suggest. Even in Winrar, the most cache-sensitive app, the speed diference is overall 6%.
And
'In our tests the processor with a 128KB L2 cache is in average only 1.2% slower than its analog with twice the size of the cache and less than 6% slower than the model with an L2 cache of the maximum size.' The extra cache only matters for games, certainly for office use, the socket 754 semprons are a screamingly obvious buy (and these days few users not gaming need more speed_
This makes sense - my memtest86 scores show that the level 2 cache is not hugely faster than my RAM.
Silly me for buying the 2800+ already (although the 2600+ wasn't available when I bought my 2800+).
But the good news is that the Sempron chips can be more-or-less directly compared with the A64 chips - the real difference is the lack of 64 bit instructions (which doesn't matter yet)....
So
Sempron 2600+ = 8x multiplier - best buy @ $78
Sempron 3000+ = 9x multiplier - 12.5% faster, 33% more expensive at $99, plus adds Cool N Quiet
Athlon 64 3000+ = 10x multiplier - 25% faster, 100% more expensive at $165
So buy the nice cool 2600+ and overclock it.