The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely. We used Adobe After Effects 6. The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still. The hard drives were defragged prior to each major benchmark run.
|Date Added:||14 December 2007|
|File Size:||21.40 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests.
Sure, the Athlon 64 with its larger cache and larger price tag is faster than the Sempron, but the budget chip still manages to hold its own, and it just creams the Celeron D. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D.
The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster. This Socket CPU runs at 3.
The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1. The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options.
Sempron + Review – Hardware Secrets
In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional. AMD has moved the Sempron line away from Socket A 34400 all the sem;ron eccentricities that went along with it, so we have no problem recommending it for low-cost machines. In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit. The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. The story is the same in LightWave rendering.
AMD Sempron 3400+
With a serious advantage in cache size, we would expect the Athlon 64 to perform better, but it also costs more.
In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel. We used Adobe After Effects 6. The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a xmd faster still.
Now we turn to actual performance using real applications. AMD has a winner here, despite the relatively high price.
List of AMD Sempron microprocessors
We extract two of the multithreading results from PCMark05 for one ssmpron of multitasking numbers, then run Photoshop Elements and Norton AntiVirus simultaneously as another test. We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3.
Swmpron three test-bed systems had the following configurations: We can say this, though: In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely. Also, we used the rundll We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. The smaller cache and lower pin count of Socket help AMD produce Sempron chips much more cheaply, and the small die size in combination with reduced clock speeds makes for a cooler-running chip, too.
Good performance semprob the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved memory support. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge.
PassMark – AMD Sempron + – Price performance comparison
The hard drives were eempron prior to each major benchmark run. All make fairly heavy use of the processor and memory subsystem.
The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode semproj twice as fast as the Celeron D. There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:. PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive.