unlike intel, amd processors have lower clock (ghz) but with more rounds per mhz (or something like that) its 1.6ghz , and it have a 256kb cache which isnt much , anyway semprons are basicly comparable to intel celeron's they are cheap processors for the budget user and not so good for gaming , anyway its not really the ghz that matters its the *power* of the cpu itself and semprons/celerons well quite weak
what kind of 6800 vid card?
- Thread starter N0toriou5
- Start date
- Status
it all depends , in general amd is indid better for gaming but that depends on the processor aswell ppl that say amd is better for gaming mean the athlon 64/fx series not the semprons. the semprons are just weak like the intel celerons , intel processors have a slight advantage on video/audio encoding times and a big advantage on multitasking (true only for pentium4 processors with hyper threading , but the dual core amd processors are very good with multitasking) the intels arent as good for gaming amd have a major advantage on that field ,
that depends what processors exactly your comparingN0toriou5 said:
maybe if you overclocked it http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819104245 , anyway i dont think youll see much diffrence between the 6600gt to the 6800gs with that processor i think its not worth the extra $, but i guess thats your decision to makeN0toriou5 said:
jeremy said:
OK let me get this fixed
. I read about it like this. Amd has longer clock speeds so it is better for gaming and so on.. but intel has shorter clock speeds which its good for multi-tasking and so on. However intel devides by a differnt number (2/4) ( i can never remeber) and then amd does the other one. You probably read that an amd (2800+) was equvilent to intel 2.8ghz which that is correct. WHen you are looking at the GHz it really is not the thing you should be looking at. Read alot of reviews and it well help you with learning on this type of stuff.
You prcessor well be bottlenecking your video card so in the end like it has been said above you would be better to go with something that your processor won't bottleneck and save you money at the same time. But with that extra money i should advise you to upgrade your computer
For as what i know the AMD Semprons are usually good for gaming and can usually overclock decent (reading reviews for that information). I would go with the 6800GS that well hold you off on gaming until you decide to upgrade your computer and then at that time i would worry about a better video card right know the 6800GS is play almsot everyhting on high/medium settings so save the money for upgradeing and jsut go with that for a short time.
Oh also i wanted to say that the Serprons (i think) is = to Intels Celeron D so it would be equivelant to a Celeron D 2.8 ghz.
Please correct me if i am wrong with any of this information tho this is what i have read on this forum and read in some reviews but don't have links to back me up
Nubius
Golden Master
- Messages
- 11,599
2800+ is equivelant to an intel 2.8GHz, but it's equivelant to an Intel Celeron and celerons are weak.
Besides the fact that they have low L2 cache, they simply cannot crunch numbers like their (in intels case P4's) or in the case of AMD their main line of AMD64 processors.
AMD's are better for gaming, but you need to get one of their 'power' CPU's meaning something like a 3000+ venice or something along those lines. Now, of course, that doesn't mean that a 3000+ is a "POWER HOUSE" processor by any means, because naturally you'd need to pay a little more to get something with a higher clock speed, but obviously it's common sense that higher clock speed = better. I guess the main Point I'm saying is, a 3000+ venice is only 1.8GHz but it would still beat out your 2GHz CPU......as the name implies a 3000+ venice even at 1.8GHz is approximately equivelant to a 3GHz intel P4 processor, whereas your Sempron, albeit having a higher clock than the venice, is not only approximately closer to 2.8GHz, but that 2.8GHz is a lot weaker than the 3GHz p4.....not just because of the clock speed, but because of it's overall structure as well.....meaning even if that intel celeron was up at 3GHz it still wouldn't compete one bit.
The semprons are the new generation of Durons, but if you don't know much about durons then that doesn't really explain anything.
Basically like I said though, it's the budget CPU's. It's not meant for heavy number crunching that's needed in games.
Besides the fact that they have low L2 cache, they simply cannot crunch numbers like their (in intels case P4's) or in the case of AMD their main line of AMD64 processors.
AMD's are better for gaming, but you need to get one of their 'power' CPU's meaning something like a 3000+ venice or something along those lines. Now, of course, that doesn't mean that a 3000+ is a "POWER HOUSE" processor by any means, because naturally you'd need to pay a little more to get something with a higher clock speed, but obviously it's common sense that higher clock speed = better. I guess the main Point I'm saying is, a 3000+ venice is only 1.8GHz but it would still beat out your 2GHz CPU......as the name implies a 3000+ venice even at 1.8GHz is approximately equivelant to a 3GHz intel P4 processor, whereas your Sempron, albeit having a higher clock than the venice, is not only approximately closer to 2.8GHz, but that 2.8GHz is a lot weaker than the 3GHz p4.....not just because of the clock speed, but because of it's overall structure as well.....meaning even if that intel celeron was up at 3GHz it still wouldn't compete one bit.
The semprons are the new generation of Durons, but if you don't know much about durons then that doesn't really explain anything.
Basically like I said though, it's the budget CPU's. It's not meant for heavy number crunching that's needed in games.
- Status
