Palomino 1900+ Vs. Sempron 2600+

[Woodchuck2000]

Long story, but bottom line is that I can choose either a Sempron 2600+ or Athlon XP 1900+ to have in my system. Which on is faster and does anyone know of any benchmarks with these two CPUs?
Thanks!

 

[Budman]

not even a comparison!!!

Sempron Hands down wins!!!

 

[imported_Dimicron]

Not up on my sockets, is the 2600+ a socket 754? If so it wins by a LOT. If they are both socket A though it'd be a bit closer, but the 2600+ would probably still take the lead.

 

[Tostada]

A Socket 754 Sempron would obviously crush the Socket A Palomino. I assume you're talking about a Socket A Sempron 2600+. The short answer is just look at the rating. A 2600+ is probably better than a 1900+. The long answer:

Athlon XP 1900+
1.6 GHz Palomino
DDR 133, 12X multiplier
128K L1 cache, 256K L2 cache
180nm process
68 Watts

Socket A Sempron 2600+
1.833 GHz Thoroughbred
DDR 333, 11X multiplier
128K L1 cache, 256K L2 cache
130nm process
62 Watts

So, the processors are pretty similar, but the Sempron is faster and runs cooler. The Palomino has no advantages.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: Tostada
A Socket 754 Sempron would obviously crush the Socket A Palomino. I assume you're talking about a Socket A Sempron 2600+. The short answer is just look at the rating. A 2600+ is probably better than a 1900+. The long answer:

Athlon XP 1900+
1.6 GHz Palomino
DDR 133, 12X multiplier
128K L1 cache, 256K L2 cache
180nm process
68 Watts

Socket A Sempron 2600+
1.833 GHz Thoroughbred
DDR 333, 11X multiplier
128K L1 cache, 256K L2 cache
130nm process
62 Watts

So, the processors are pretty similar, but the Sempron is faster and runs cooler. The Palomino has no advantages.

That's roughly what I thought, although i wasn't entirely sure about the process... The core on the Sempron is indeed significantly smaller than that of the Athlon, I wasn't sure whether that was because of the process or some cutbacks. Sempron it is then! Ta!