Celeron or Sempron

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by st giles, Nov 3, 2005.

  1. st giles

    st giles Nibble Poster

    54
    0
    23
    Nov 3, 2005 #1
    Remove Advertisement - Premium Membership
    Hi,
    In all of your infinite wisdom what would be the better package to buy. A socket 754 mobo with a Amd Sempron cpu or a Intel Celeron package. I'm certain one is just as good as the other but they must have their advantages? Also is a cpu with a higher L2 cache better than a cpu with a higher clock speed?
    Ilook forward to your replys. :)
     
    Certifications: none
    WIP: a+
  2. Bluerinse
    Honorary Member

    Bluerinse Exabyte Poster

    8,878
    181
    256
    Nov 4, 2005 #2
    Remove Advertisement - Premium Membership
    I can't answer your question because I haven't bought any new hardware for ages now. Things change so fast these days that it is virtually impossible to stay current.

    Hopefully someone that is actively involved in the latest trends with processors will be able to help you. I have enough trouble trying to compare laptop Pentium M processors with Cellerons or the AMD offerings. It used to be much simpler than it is now :eek:
     
    Certifications: C&G Electronics - MCSA (W2K) MCSE (W2K)
  3. ffreeloader

    ffreeloader Terabyte Poster

    3,661
    106
    167
    Nov 4, 2005 #3
    I agree. That's why I just stick with AMD. I have yet to build a computer for myself with an Intel cpu.
     
    Certifications: MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA, A+
    WIP: LPIC 1
  4. Phoenix
    Honorary Member

    Phoenix 53656e696f7220 4d6f64

    5,749
    200
    246
    Nov 4, 2005 #4
    neithers very good
    see if you can splosh out a bit extra on a normal athlon or pentium 4 (choice is upto you, depends on if you fall for the fanboy brainwashing you see everywhere on the net)
     
    Certifications: MCSE, MCITP, VCP
    WIP: > 0
  5. Kitkatninja
    Highly Decorated Member Award 500 Likes Award

    Kitkatninja aka me, myself & I Moderator

    11,143
    559
    383
    Nov 4, 2005 #5
    Hi,

    I guess it would be down to cost vs. name vs. performance vs. tech spec.

    A Sempron chip & MB would be cheaper than a Celeron & MB (in the UK).

    Performance wise from an everyday point of view I can't really see any difference (Both at home & work, we're running both Intel & AMD). However it is said that for Scienitific calculations the Intel chip out performed the AMD, but that was a couple of years ago.

    For AMD tech spec Click here

    For Intel comparison Click here

    As most people are aware AMD rates their processor by it's performance power (for example the Sempron 3400+ only really runs at 2.01Ghz), While Intel rates their processor by it's raw power (a 2Ghz chip runs at 2Ghz).

    If you have the extra cash then it would be a choice of either the P4 or the Athlon 64/Athlon 64 X2, the latter (X2) being the more advanced chip.

    If you wanted a cheap 64 bit system, then the new Semprons would be the better option for you, as their now 64-bit.

    Just side stepping for a second, if it's an overall fast system you're wishing to build, then you're also going to have to take into consideration the other PC component, as such the HDD speed, the MB, the RAM type & speed, etc. That's why a 3ghz pc from one company will perform better than a 3ghz PC from another company.

    In my humble opinion, I would go for AMD - but for me it's the price factor. I would guess it would be up to you in the end.

    Got to go, currently at work, got to look as if I'm doing something :biggrin

    If I have any other info, I'll reply again, hope this helps.

    -Ken
     
    Certifications: MSc, PGDip, PGCert, BSc, HNC, LCGI, MBCS CITP, MCP, MCSA, MCSE, MCE, A+, N+, S+, Server+
    WIP: MSc Cyber Security
  6. Neall

    Neall Byte Poster

    214
    6
    0
    Nov 4, 2005 #6
    To be honest you wont notice the difference in performance from either cpu. It's just down to personal preference.
    The Semprons will run slightly cooler as they use less power and AMD are usually cheaper then Intel Processors.
    Me... i would and have always gone for AMD. But as i said its down to personal preference.

    I would always choose a processor by the clock speed rather than the L2 Cache. The higher the clock speed the faster the processor, regardless of L2 Cache size.

    Neall
     
    WIP: A+
  7. Kitkatninja
    Highly Decorated Member Award 500 Likes Award

    Kitkatninja aka me, myself & I Moderator

    11,143
    559
    383
    Nov 4, 2005 #7
    Hi again,

    I would partially agree with Neall on this one.

    True the higher the clock speed the faster the processor, however remember the Durons and the Athlons. The Durons were Athlons but with only 64k of l2 cache instead of 256k, even though you could get a 1.6 Duron (they went up to 1.8Ghz), the 1.53 Athlon would always outperform the 1.6 Duron. This was due to the increased size of the level 2 cache.

    I know this doesn't really answer your question, but while I have a few seconds spare - throw in my views again :biggrin
     
    Certifications: MSc, PGDip, PGCert, BSc, HNC, LCGI, MBCS CITP, MCP, MCSA, MCSE, MCE, A+, N+, S+, Server+
    WIP: MSc Cyber Security
  8. zxspectrum

    zxspectrum Terabyte Poster Forum Leader Gold Member

    2,092
    216
    244
    Nov 4, 2005 #8
    Can i just say i really dont know about either processors but a theory i have devised may help you with this.

    Sempron: sounds like a womans sanitry towel
    Celeron: Sond like part of a salad

    I hope that helps you out, now heres our graham with a quick reminder:
    Wagnerk are you going to pick the one that would taste nice with a balsonic dressing or the one that has the painters in at least once a meth the choice is yours
     
    Certifications: BSc computing and information systems
    WIP: 70-680
  9. ffreeloader

    ffreeloader Terabyte Poster

    3,661
    106
    167
    Nov 4, 2005 #9
    It depends on how much faster the cpu with the the smaller cache is. A 1 ghz cpu with a 512 k cache is going to be slower than a 2 ghz cpu with 128 k cache, but is a 2.4 ghz cpu with a large cache going to be slower than a 2.6 ghz cpu with a small cache? Maybe yes, maybe no. There are a lot of other factors go into determining overall cpu performance too.
     
    Certifications: MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA, A+
    WIP: LPIC 1
  10. Kitkatninja
    Highly Decorated Member Award 500 Likes Award

    Kitkatninja aka me, myself & I Moderator

    11,143
    559
    383
    Nov 4, 2005 #10
    Hi,

    Very funny zxspectrum :biggrin , love the way you look & choose your processors

    "Wagnerk are you going to pick the one that would taste nice with a balsonic dressing or the one that has the painters in at least once a meth the choice is yours"

    I'll answer - Me, myself, I'm a meat eater, not too big on salads. And lets face it, I'd rather have my wife comfortable than uncomfortable :biggrin

    The new & improved way to choose a processor...
     
    Certifications: MSc, PGDip, PGCert, BSc, HNC, LCGI, MBCS CITP, MCP, MCSA, MCSE, MCE, A+, N+, S+, Server+
    WIP: MSc Cyber Security
  11. fig_jam_uk

    fig_jam_uk Bit Poster

    29
    0
    31
    Nov 13, 2005 #11
    V.funny ZX LMAO

    right i myself personally would vote AMD every time, i think intel chips are WAYYYY over priced, anyways all the PC`s i have built for people and my own systems are all AMD and i have had absoultly no issues with them from setting up to overall running.

    the grass is greener on AMD`s side. :biggrin
     
    Certifications: MCP win2k PRO
    WIP: ?

Share This Page

Loading...
Remove Advertisement - Premium Membership
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...