Sempron 64 vs. The Barton

[pc_boy]

hey, was looking around for chips, and i found the AMD sempron 64

Sempron 64 2800+
800MHz FSB
64KB+64KB L1
256KB L2
90 nm Process <<-
64-bit support

looks pretty good to me, the only thing is 256K cache, but i don't think it's that big of a deal. I thought it is pretty good for $75. Is it better than the 2500+ Barton Athlon XP?

 

[TheMajor]

I would stick with the Barton and save some money to get a non-budget CPU.
If you want to switch anyway, I'd like to buy the Barton if it's unlocked.

 

[Flanker]

Sempron 64 > All except Athlon 64. Simple as that.

Is the Barton 64 bit? Is it rates 2800+? Is it 90nm? Is it Socket 754?

Both are budget. Sempron is better. Those things overclock to 2.6Ghz on air, multiplier or not.

 

[TheMajor]

Barton are just old, not budget. They used to be the best.

 

[Flanker]

So did Pentium IIIs...

 

[TheMajor]

Yeah, the Tualatin.

What I was saying is that Sempron is a budget CPU.
Just like Duron and Celeron. Stripped down Athlon's and Pentiums.

 

[Flanker]

I see what you mean. But I don't agree with it. Like you said yourself, its old. The Sempron 64 may be designed as a budget CPU, but it still holds its own. If you take the Athlon 64 3000+ and Sempron 64 3400+, they're both 2.0GHz but the Sempron 64 has 1.) 256KB L2 cache instead of 51MB and 2.) Socket 754 instead of Socket 939.

Cache makes about .05MHz of difference, and the Socket difference would account for nothing noticeable. Otherwise, they're the exact same processor. And with the Sempron 64's overclockability, its an excellent deal (The Athlon 64 3000+ would have to get to 2.55GHz to match performance).

 

[TheMajor]

With socket 939 you can run your memory in dual-channel. Huge difference.
Btw,
I didn't say the Barton would outperform the Sempron. I would just wait a few months and get an Athlon

 

[Flanker]

Dual Channel wouldn't affect processor performance. I typed that out and then erased it.

 

[TheMajor]

But it's an advantage.