Which is faster: Sempron 2.0 MHz or Opteron 1.8 MHz?

[Towermax]

My girlfriend has a Compaq Presario with a Palermo core Socket 939 Sempron. Speed is 2.0, cache is 128K.

No overclocking is possible due to bios limitations and the system freezes when using any of the software overclocking tools.

I recently got a Venus core Opteron 144 in a trade. It's only 1.8 MHz, but has 1MB of cache. Would she see any improvement in performance using the Opteron instead of the Sempron or would it just be a wash? She just does the usual websurfing, email, and MS Office stuff, plus a big ACT database.

 

[Markfw]

I would guess the opteron, but maybe somebody else has opinions.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I would imagine the performance will be virtually identical, though the opteron is certainly a 'nicer' chip.

Given it's in your gf's computer, just leave it the way it is, she's definitely not missing much.

 

[StopSign]

I think the Sempron probably outperforms the Opteron 144.

 

[datwater]

put that opty in a board that can squeeze some juice out of it. not worth putting in a gimpy compaq board.

 

[StopSign]

Of course the Opteron will overclock better, but that's not the issue at hand.

 

[kmmatney]

I would think the Opteron would be better overall, although the Sempron will beat it certain benchmarks that only depend on cpu speed. Too bad you can't use ClockGen software to overclock. Both cpu's would overclock well, but the Opteron would gain a lot of performance.

 

[Towermax]

Ok, thanks for the replies. I suspect it wouldn't make much, if any, difference. AMD rates their CPUs with 1 MB cache as equivalent to a CPU one step faster than a CPU with a 512K cache. So, all in all, it's not worth the trouble of swapping. I'm going to try to mod the bios on the Presario so it can be overclocked. If that's not successful, I'll probably just sell or swap the Opteron for something I can use.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I would estimate that, overall, a 1.8 ghz s939 Opteron would be about as fast as a 2.1 ghz s939 Sempron (128k l2). So . . . on average, the Opteron wouldn't be that much faster actually. Er, this is assuming that s939 single-core Athlon64s gain about a 5% performance advantage every time the l2 doubles in size.

 

[tallman45]

The performance gain between 512kb of L2 cache and 1mb of cache is approx 5%, mainly becuase 512kb is a large cache and can fit a lot of data

However 128kb of cache is a serious bottleneck. Expect a 1gb cache Opteron to offer snappier performance

Levels of performance low (128 KB L2), middle (256 and 512 KB L2) and high (1 MB L2).

The gain between the upper mid level of 512kb to 1mb is 5% at best, expect to see gains of 10-12% between the mid levels cache sizes and yet another 15-18% gain between the lower level and the lower mid level cache.

So, an upgrade from a 2.1ghz Sempron with 128kb of cache to even a 512kb L2 processor is going to net you pretty large performance boost. Remember performance is mesured in more than just how many Mhz a processor puts out.

 

[Arkaign]

Due to the cache difference, the Opteron would make a big difference in performance in Windows/Multitasking situations. In single-threaded games without antivirus/etc running in the background, the Sempron *might* occassionally catch up, but it's unlikely w/128k L2.

Those Presario AMD's use regular mATX mobos, you could toss a $40ish s939 board from a reputable Ebay seller, and then O/C the Opty FTW. The only tricky part can be connecting the front panel for the power switch, that's usually the only non-standard area of modern Compaq PCs.

Check this

http://cgi.ebay.com/ASUS-A8R-MX-SI-Sock...04QQcategoryZ99245QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: tallman45
The performance gain between 512kb of L2 cache and 1mb of cache is approx 5%, mainly becuase 512kb is a large cache and can fit a lot of data

However 128kb of cache is a serious bottleneck. Expect a 1gb cache Opteron to offer snappier performance

Levels of performance low (128 KB L2), middle (256 and 512 KB L2) and high (1 MB L2).

The gain between the upper mid level of 512kb to 1mb is 5% at best, expect to see gains of 10-12% between the mid levels cache sizes and yet another 15-18% gain between the lower level and the lower mid level cache.

So, an upgrade from a 2.1ghz Sempron with 128kb of cache to even a 512kb L2 processor is going to net you pretty large performance boost. Remember performance is mesured in more than just how many Mhz a processor puts out.

Interesting. Granted, I haven't seen many benchmarks using 256k and 128k l2 chips, but I figured the same basic rule (+5% whenever you double the cache) held true regardless of the cache size.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Interesting. Granted, I haven't seen many benchmarks using 256k and 128k l2 chips, but I figured the same basic rule (+5% whenever you double the cache) held true regardless of the cache size.

Well, you figured right. I don't know where tallman45 got his figures, or if he made them up on the spot, but here's a good comparison:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-2600_5.html

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Interesting. Granted, I haven't seen many benchmarks using 256k and 128k l2 chips, but I figured the same basic rule (+5% whenever you double the cache) held true regardless of the cache size.

Well, you figured right. I don't know where tallman45 got his figures, or if he made them up on the spot, but here's a good comparison:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-2600_5.html

"Made them up on the spot"

I suppose you would also like to see documented proof that the performance gain of system ram are greater when you go from 128mb to 256mb, then to 512mb and then smaller gains are attained from 512mb to 1gb ?

anyway, here is one good article

Sempron vs A64 Cache

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: tallman45
"Made them up on the spot"

I suppose you would also like to see documented proof that the performance gain of system ram are greater when you go from 128mb to 256mb, then to 512mb and then smaller gains are attained from 512mb to 1gb ?

anyway, here is one good article

Sempron vs A64 Cache

There's some sort of anomaly in those tests, were a 256kB CPU outperforms a 512kB one in a few tests. This is likely what causes them to be so close in most of the other tests. It's pretty obvious that the cache amount isn't the only difference between those chips.

Anyway, what I mainly meant to criticize was this:

Originally posted by: tallman45The gain between the upper mid level of 512kb to 1mb is 5% at best, expect to see gains of 10-12% between the mid levels cache sizes and yet another 15-18% gain between the lower level and the lower mid level cache.

Neither Xbit's or Digit-Life's tests show anything near those figures. It seems that you should be happy if you see a 10% difference between a 128kB K8 and a 512kB one.

 

[n7]

Opteron would most definitely be faster.

 

[Zap]

How about sell both the chips and then grab a 3800+ or 4000+? Too bad you missed out on the 4000+ for $80 shipped at Newegg. You would have come out money ahead. Those are 2.4GHz with 1MB cache, so you get the core speed PLUS the cache. Well, though they are wasted in a non-overclockable board as well - mine can run 3.2GHz.

 

[formulav8]

Do the Opteron. Depending on what the computer is used for, you could get huge benefits of more than 20% , in some games, Doom 3 is one), but usually a solid 8%-14% average gain in most games. 3D Rendering apps would be another type of app that would see some big gains.

BUT, if websurfing, encoding, and other normal stuff will only be a 1-5% gain on average. So, it really depends on what is going to be done with the computer.



Jason

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: Zap
How about sell both the chips and then grab a 3800+ or 4000+? Too bad you missed out on the 4000+ for $80 shipped at Newegg. You would have come out money ahead. Those are 2.4GHz with 1MB cache, so you get the core speed PLUS the cache. Well, though they are wasted in a non-overclockable board as well - mine can run 3.2GHz.

But then who gets the chip, him or his girlfriend...?

Read the original post please.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: StopSign
But then who gets the chip, him or his girlfriend...?

Read the original post please.

I did read it. He said the Opty was a spare from a trade. Though his GF doesn't need it for those basic tasks, he can turn the two slower chips into a faster one + cash = teh win.

 

[Towermax]

Originally posted by: Zap
How about sell both the chips and then grab a 3800+ or 4000+? Too bad you missed out on the 4000+ for $80 shipped at Newegg. You would have come out money ahead. Those are 2.4GHz with 1MB cache, so you get the core speed PLUS the cache.

Not a bad idea--I'll start watching for another sale. Really, for her non-overclockable mobo, a fast chip with lots of cache would be ideal. Or an X2, since she often has several programs open plus 15 browser windows and is zipping back and forth between them.

 

[Towermax]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Those Presario AMD's use regular mATX mobos, you could toss a $40ish s939 board from a reputable Ebay seller, and then O/C the Opty FTW. The only tricky part can be connecting the front panel for the power switch, that's usually the only non-standard area of modern Compaq PCs.

Right--it's an OEM Asus mATX with the bios severely crippled. She's happy enough with it, but would occasionally like a bit more speed. I'd rather spend the money on a faster CPU than a new mobo.

Now, if it was for me, it'd be a new mobo and the Opty overclocked significantly. But that's another story . . .

 

[Towermax]

Originally posted by: Zap
How about sell both the chips and then grab a 3800+ or 4000+? Too bad you missed out on the 4000+ for $80 shipped at Newegg. You would have come out money ahead. Those are 2.4GHz with 1MB cache, so you get the core speed PLUS the cache. Well, though they are wasted in a non-overclockable board as well - mine can run 3.2GHz.

The 4000+ showed up again on Newegg at 79.99 and free shipping--so we bought it. The Opteron 144 and the Sempron 939 will be up for sale soon.

Actually, the 4000+ is ideal for a non-overclocking board--she needs horsepower and can't get it through overclocking.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Towermax

Originally posted by: Zap
How about sell both the chips and then grab a 3800+ or 4000+? Too bad you missed out on the 4000+ for $80 shipped at Newegg. You would have come out money ahead. Those are 2.4GHz with 1MB cache, so you get the core speed PLUS the cache. Well, though they are wasted in a non-overclockable board as well - mine can run 3.2GHz.

The 4000+ showed up again on Newegg at 79.99 and free shipping--so we bought it. The Opteron 144 and the Sempron 939 will be up for sale soon.

Actually, the 4000+ is ideal for a non-overclocking board--she needs horsepower and can't get it through overclocking.

:thumbsup:

 

[SparkyJJO]

with that tiny amount of cache on that sempron, I'd go for the opty.