Hows a Sempron?

[Computergen1]

Well, I have composed a list of articles commenting on the AMD Sempron but I want to hear from someone who has it or has had it.

http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/sempron/

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/sempron/index.x?pg=1

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2395


The Sempron 2800+ and 3100+ both live up to the relative performance claims implied by their model numbers. With integrated graphics enabled, the Sempron 2800+ and its nForce2 chipset embarrassed the Celeron D with Intel Extreme Graphics in our gaming and graphics tests. When we used a separate GeForce FX 5700 Ultra card, the Sempron 2800+ still outperformed the Celeron D 335 most of the time.

(^From 2nd Link^)

I have heard good and bad about this from various articles but who actually has it? And is it good for gaming?

 

[jac006]

Ah, the sempron's are getting old. They're good for the opener into the world of comp (if that makes sense) but an amd 64 or even the x2's are really what you should get. The x2's are dual core, but since most of us don't really use mutlitasking to THAT extent, a single amd 64 should suffice all needs.

 

[Computergen1]

Well yeah, But I mean a Sempron would be good for a internet and eMail computer, well then again so would a Celeron....

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Celeron D would be better

 

[The_Necromancer1]

no, it would not be, Celerons Suck!

Read it and weep LK!

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

A decision based on Overclocking Potential merely shows how much dishonour is required if you want to turn a Sempron into a good Processor

 

[mighty_chick]

lol havent you figured it out yet? you cannot beat LK

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Haha. The Semprons are reasonable enough, but they're cheap worthless Chips for people who don't need power, who don't need endurance. A Celeron D, while a little slower in most Games, will outlast a Sempron if used for more than 6 hours a day even in idle almost twice.