• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which cpu will run faster in 32-bit OS, Sempron 3100+ or A64 2800+?

B

bupkus

Diamond Member
The Sempron 3100+ operates at default of 1.8GHz whereas,
the A64 2800+ also operates at a default of 1.8GHz.

I'm just considering which cpu for a SFF Biostar IDEQ 210P to be used for office work and web surfing.
I'm also thinking of the nforce2 SFF Biostar IDEQ 200N which has onboard video for less $$.
Hey, next budget step is a Celeron-D 320 in the Shuttle SB61G2V2 with Intel Extreme Graphics 2 or the
Shuttle ST61G4L with ATI Radeon 9100.
 
A64 because it has twice as much cache (512 vs. 256) 😀. Now, if they had same amount of cache: it's not clear. AMD64 architucture added some registers or something like that, but I don't know if Sempron lacks them, or whether 32-bit OS can utilize them..
 
I sure wish I understood why AMD seems to have inflated their ratings for the Sempron. Afterall, 3100+ is the same across the board, even if the processor has LESS cache.
 
Aren't AMD's numbers intended to be compared to the matching Intel processor under the prior Intel naming conventions? The mainline AMD cpu's are compared to P4's, while the budget cpu's are compared to Celeron processors instead. Which in turn suggests that Intel's naming of Celerons is more difficult to understand.

:beer:
 
The Athlon 64 PR is comparing to Pentium 4. Athlon 64 2800+ = P4 2.8ghz. Semprons compare to celerons. Sempron 3100+ = Celeron 3.1 Ghz. But these are very conservative. In real world, the 64 2800 is much closer to the 3 and 3.2ghz p4, and a celeron would have to be around 3.4Ghz+ to beat a sempron 3100.
 
Nothing like bad info.

There's Sempron 3100 vs. A64 2800 reviews out there, they're almost equal.
Don't let these guys with bad data mess you up.
 
They are about equal in performance. I'd buy the A64 2800, though, because it's about $8 more and comes with double the cache 64-bit compatibility for the future, if/when that's necessary. NX might also be disabled on the Semp 3100, but I don't remember for sure.
 
The fastest chip will be the one that overclocks the highest (give 1-2% for the extra cache of the 2800+). The 3100+ does have NX. At their current prices I would probably get the 2800+.
 
Originally posted by: ts3433
They are about equal in performance. I'd buy the A64 2800, though, because it's about $8 more and comes with double the cache 64-bit compatibility for the future, if/when that's necessary. NX might also be disabled on the Semp 3100, but I don't remember for sure.
Click to expand...

Sound advice. And 64-bit extensions (if not 64-bit software) is just around the corner.

I know it costs a little more, but I'd recommend the socket939 version of the A64, and the newer, smaller core at that. The $50-70 spent there gives you better speed, upgradability down the road and cool-temp processing right away. That could mean less fan noise in your ATX case.

Don't bother with Sempron unless you're talking a super-budget SocketA setup with a 2400+ which does bump up nicely 20% from 333FSB to 400FSB. (almost 2900+ speed for $50 is kinda' nice.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top