AMD AM1 Sempron 2650 1.5GHz dual-core or 3850 1.3GHz quad-core for single-thread?

[waltchan]

I'm always confused which one of the two, Sempron 2650 1.5GHz dual-core or 3850 1.3GHz quad-core, will benefit me more for single-thread use only. I don't play any games at all, only basic e-mails and web browsing, and some YouTube videos.

While the Sempron 3850 1.3GHz quad-core is technically superior than 2650, frequency speed is 200 MHz slower than the cheaper Sempron 2650 1.5GHz dual-core. Isn't 200 MHz a lot to lose on the single-thread, and am I better off with the 2650 instead based on my usage?

Thanks for any advice.

 

[Abwx]

Pick an Athlon 5350 instead, and give it a cheap SSD, you ll have 4 cores as well as much better performance on all fronts...

 

[waltchan]

Pick an Athlon 5350 instead, and give it a cheap SSD, you ll have 4 cores as well as much better performance on all fronts...

My budget limit for one processor is $30 max. Athlons are out of the question. I successfully purchased two Sempron 2650s from TigerDirect for only $19.99 each sale. But I need someone to verify for me whether the 2650 APU is for me or not in terms of single-thread performance over the 3850 for $30 ($10 more).

 

[SlowSpyder]

For single threaded-only performance the higher clocked part will be faster. Both will be pretty slow overall, though.

 

[Abwx]

My budget limit for one processor is $30 max. Athlons are out of the question. I successfully purchased two Sempron 2650 from TigerDirect for only $19.99 sale. But I need someone to verify for me whether the 2650 APU is for me or not in terms of single-thread performance over the 3850 for $30 ($10 more).

At 30$ perhaps that you could benefit from some rebate to get an Athlon 5150 at this price, otherwise if really pressed between the 2650 and the 3850 i would pick the latter since browsers like Firefox use 4 cores, and that watching youtube will require more processes that will likely be distributed by the OS through the existing cores ressources.

If there s a single or dual threaded occurence you wont make the difference between 1s and 1.115s or between 5s and 5.575s, but for sure that if there s 3 or 4 threads running there will be a noticeable advantage for the 4C, a 2650 is 55% of a 3850 throughput wise..

 

[SlowSpyder]

I was just assuming the OP had a specific single threaded-only use. If this will be for some kind of general use machine, I'd get the slightly lower clocked quad. The clockspeed difference isn't enough to be a huge difference, two extra cores can be depending on the software.

 

[VirtualLarry]

pick the latter since browsers like Firefox use 4 cores

Firefox and Waterfox are single-threaded. However, the Flash Player plugin appears to be multi-threaded.

 

[waltchan]

I was just assuming the OP had a specific single threaded-only use. If this will be for some kind of general use machine, I'd get the slightly lower clocked quad. The clockspeed difference isn't enough to be a huge difference, two extra cores can be depending on the software.

Yes, only general use. Firefox is indeed single-threaded. Maybe I'm ready to open the 2650 box (hard to believe it's cheaper and better). Unless someone has better suggestion to make for me.

 

[Jovec]

I think you would have a hard time telling the difference between the two for purely single threaded tasks given the low performance of the CPUs in question. That said, I second the idea that the quad should offer a generally most pleasant experience overall.

If you are that budget constrained, the used market might offer better value.

 

[Abwx]

Firefox and Waterfox are single-threaded. However, the Flash Player plugin appears to be multi-threaded.

To open the tab to answer you get my CPU running its two cores on Ffox, and when i use the Athlon 5350 the 4 cores are used with the same browser.

Out of curiosity i opened this paper s page just before posting, usage spiked at 67% for the two cores :

http://www.lemonde.fr/

 

[cbn]

If you open the box and do the install, I would like to hear your opinion on that Sempron 2650 vs. the Celeron 460 you mentioned in the basic (non gaming) desktop thread.

 

[waltchan]

If you open the box and do the install, I would like to hear your opinion on that Sempron 2650 vs. the Celeron 460 you mentioned in the basic (non gaming) desktop thread.

Celeron G460 is far faster than Sempron 2650 (not a valid comparison), and G460 is more affordable to buy than 2650 as well. I installed three already, they love them, actually, far better than Bay Trail Celeron J1800 tablet processor they used before. Single thread score is 822 in G460 vs. 504 in 2650. Plus, SATA III support with B75 chipset and Intel's unique Rapid Storage Technology software helps make its single-thread feels more like 1000 instead of 822.

Sempron 2650 competes directly with Celeron J1800, actually. Only difference is better Radeon R2 graphics in 2650.

I'm still undecided which Sempron to pick at this moment. I'm hoping there's a deal on Athlon 5150, but can't find any right now.

 

[SPBHM]

as you can see here, on web browser benchmarks the 2650 is a little faster
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8067/...athlon-53505150-and-sempron-38502650-tested/6

but in real world usage it's likely that you would run more than a single software at a time or that windows or another software would start an update process or something else, and I think the advantage of having more than 2 cores could be visible, also if for some reason IGP video acceleration is not working properly the difference would be huge.

for software with more obvious use for 4 cores there is no hope for the 2650 to keep up
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8067/...athlon-53505150-and-sempron-38502650-tested/3

both are horrible for ST, I would go with the 3850 without a doubt.... or better, I wouldn't buy any of these CPUs.

 

[escrow4]

I'm always confused which one of the two, Sempron 2650 1.5GHz dual-core or 3850 1.3GHz quad-core, will benefit me more for single-thread use only. I don't play any games at all, only basic e-mails and web browsing, and some YouTube videos.

While the Sempron 3850 1.3GHz quad-core is technically superior than 2650, frequency speed is 200 MHz slower than the cheaper Sempron 2650 1.5GHz dual-core. Isn't 200 MHz a lot to lose on the single-thread, and am I better off with the 2650 instead based on my usage?

Thanks for any advice.

Neither. I'd bet money both would crack 100% with 720p Youtube (never mind 1080p) and some other stuff in the background (even Windows updates). May as well get a Bay Trail frisbee like an HP Stream or something Asus.

 

[VirtualLarry]

My Brazos / Zacate 1.6Ghz E-350 could play back 1080P YouTube in Win7 64-bit HP, several years ago. I would be mildly suprised, if current APUs couldn't do the same.

 

[waltchan]

My Brazos / Zacate 1.6Ghz E-350 could play back 1080P YouTube in Win7 64-bit HP, several years ago. I would be mildly suprised, if current APUs couldn't do the same.

They all can play 1080p with no problem as long as you have at least 4GB of RAM. Radeon has a great reputation. Even the slow-puke C-50 1GHz processor from 2011 plays well.

 

[gorion]

They all can play 1080p with no problem as long as you have at least 4GB of RAM. Radeon has a great reputation. Even the slow-puke C-50 1GHz processor from 2011 plays well.

It's not true.
I have a c-50 and it can play 1080p only from vlc or dvd. In browser it skips frames. And i upgraded its RAM to 4gb.

I'd go with some used chip. 500 passmark in single thread is very low

 

[monstercameron]

It's not true.
I have a c-50 and it can play 1080p only from vlc or dvd. In browser it skips frames. And i upgraded its RAM to 4gb.

I'd go with some used chip. 500 passmark in single thread is very low

Try internet explorer for YouTube and Hulu video.

 

[cbn]

They all can play 1080p with no problem as long as you have at least 4GB of RAM. Radeon has a great reputation. Even the slow-puke C-50 1GHz processor from 2011 plays well.

I had some trouble last year using You tube on Linux with my E1-2100 Kabini APU (two jaguar cores @ 1 Ghz and 300 Mhz 128 sp GCN iGPU), but I was using the open source drivers.

I might do some more testing to see if the open source drivers have improved. I may also load up the proprietary driver if the Linux Mint 17.1 driver manager allows me to do that. (Up to this point all I have used with driver manager is Nvidia drivers and those load up just fine.)

P.S. So far I haven't done any testing with E1-2100 and Windows 8.1, so I can't comment on performance using that operating system.

 

[waltchan]

It's not true.
I have a c-50 and it can play 1080p only from vlc or dvd. In browser it skips frames. And i upgraded its RAM to 4gb.

I'd go with some used chip. 500 passmark in single thread is very low

Your C-50 single-thread score is only 263 , half the speed of Sempron 2650 at 504. I'm surprised you're still using it today, as the C-50 is rated by me one of the worst processors ever built in the "worst CPU" thread I mentioned.

Change the power plan to "high performance" mode, it may help.

 

[gorion]

Your C-50 single-thread score is only 263, half the speed of Sempron 2650 at 504. I'm surprised you're still using it today, as the C-50 is rated by me one of the worst processors ever built in the "worst CPU" thread.

Change the power plan to "high performance" mode, it may help.

I said I have one, not that I 'm still using it

I also have another two notebooks right now and a desktop.. I was trying to resurrect the c-50 for my mother, but it was so slow l ended up getting a cheap used b980 notebook

 

[monstercameron]

I said I have one, not that I 'm still using it

I also have another two notebooks right now and a desktop.. I was trying to resurrect the c-50 for my mother, but it was so slow l ended up getting a cheap used b980 notebook

Use androidx86 to breathe new life into that machine.

 

[soccerballtux]

I would definitely take the quad core. There's a lot of background windows processes that like to do things and having the quad will help immensely.

 

[cbn]

I loaded up Windows 8.1 and Catalyst on the ECS Kabini E1-2100 tonight. It does play 1080p Youtube video smoothly on Firefox. However, web navigating and webpage scrolling on a 1080p monitor with Firefox can be slow at times. Example: On a content heavy webpage like the Verge homepage, there can be some hanging when using just the mouse wheel for scrolling. When using Chrome for that same webpage I thought the scrolling was much smother.

 

[AtenRa]

Take the quad core, 1.3GHz is more than enough for the usage you want and you will still have 4 cores.
Just disable every power saving setting in the bios.