Socket A & 754 Sempron caution.

I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64 3000+.
Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch of the
benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons could have
higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up with an Athlon 64
2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is actually a tbred B core
running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+ tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.30.05.55.35.314919@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64 3000+.
Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch of the
benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons could have
higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up with an Athlon 64
2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is actually a tbred B core
running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+ tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at all. I
recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and CPU, thus you
preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )

Hank Kimball
"I have an important message for you, life or death." .. Ok, what is the
message? "What message?"

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:54:17 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64 3000+.
Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch of the
benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons could have
higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up with an Athlon 64
2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is actually a tbred B core
running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+ tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.

Once again, your ahead of the game - thanx for the ' heads up ' Wes !

BoroLad

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.30.05.55.35.314919@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64 3000+.
Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch of the
benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons could have
higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up with an Athlon 64
2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is actually a tbred B core
running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+ tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.



Yea, The benchark is supposed to be a close to a CeleronD comparision
chart..

Hank Kimball wrote:
"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.30.05.55.35.314919@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
I don't know if this is well known or not but AMD has used different
criteria in giving the Sempron line of cpu's its PR numbers. So don't
buy a Sempron 3100+ expecting it to be faster than an Athlon 64
3000+. Because it's nowhere close to as fast. AMD ommitted a bunch
of the benchmarks used for Athlon XP's and Athlon 64 so the Semprons
could have higher PR numbers. The sempron 3100+ won't even keep up
with an Athlon 64 2800+ And the Sempron for Socket A 2800+ is
actually a tbred B core running slower (12x166) than the XP 2600+
tbred (12.5x166).

As info only, I crossposted this to several groups.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at
all. I recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and
CPU, thus you preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )


Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754 CPU. Can't
really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to upgrade the CPU and
board together.

--
Derek

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:32:40 +0000, wrote:

Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754 CPU.
Can't really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to upgrade
the CPU and board together.

If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with
your skt A (if that's what you have the 939 kicks ass compared (in all
of the benchmarks, and from the huge gaps i would tend to belive that it
would really affect the feeling you get)

You must be looking at different benchmarks than I am. Except for
bandwidth, they seem pretty close, model for model. The only advantage to
939 over 754 is the dual channel ram. And of course future upgrades past
3700+. Starting with a 3000+ that still leaves room. The price difference
is a lot greater than the performance difference at this time.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

rstlne wrote:
Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at
all. I recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and
CPU, thus you preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )


Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754
CPU. Can't really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to
upgrade the CPU and board together.

--
Derek


If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with
your skt A (if that's what you have)
the 939 kicks ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the
huge gaps i would tend to belive that it would really affect the
feeling you get)

What benchmarks are you looking at? The ones I've seen show a small
difference between the 3400+ and 3500+.

--
Derek

Derek Baker wrote:
rstlne wrote:
Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at
all. I recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and
CPU, thus you preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )


Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754
CPU. Can't really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to
upgrade the CPU and board together.

--
Derek


If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with
your skt A (if that's what you have)
the 939 kicks ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the
huge gaps i would tend to belive that it would really affect the
feeling you get)

What benchmarks are you looking at? The ones I've seen show a small
difference between the 3400+ and 3500+.

Here's a comparison of the 3400+ and 3500+:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2065&p=15

Though note since then the 3400+ ha slost half it's cache and gained 200Mhz.

--
Derek

Thank you. I for one recommend not purchasing a 754 socket CPU at
all. I recommend going straight for the 939 based motherboard and
CPU, thus you preserve your investment for at least 2 years. )


Looks like I'm just about to do the opposite and get a Socket 754 CPU.
Can't
really justify the extra for a 3500+, when I expect to upgrade the CPU and
board together.

--
Derek


If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just stick with your
skt A (if that's what you have)
the 939 kicks ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the huge gaps
i would tend to belive that it would really affect the feeling you get)

"rstlne" == rstlne writes:

rstlne If your willing to go to a 754 then you might as well just
rstlne stick with your skt A (if that's what you have) the 939 kicks
rstlne ass compared (in all of the benchmarks, and from the huge
rstlne gaps i would tend to belive that it would really affect the
rstlne feeling you get)


Really. Anyway the few benchmarks I have seen don't show that
significant of a performance difference between 939 vs 754. Could you
kindly send a url that shows these big differences.

Thanks

Alan