We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge. In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely. We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3.
|Date Added:||12 February 2007|
|File Size:||31.6 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Sure, the Athlon 64 with its larger cache and larger price tag is faster than the Sempron, but the budget chip still sepmron to hold its own, and it just creams the Celeron D. We extract two of the multithreading results from PCMark05 for one set of multitasking numbers, then run Photoshop Elements and Norton AntiVirus simultaneously as another test.
The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: The smaller cache and lower pin count of Socket help AMD produce Sempron chips much more cheaply, and the small die size in combination with reduced clock speeds makes for a cooler-running chip, too. PCMark05 consists semprom a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive.
It runs at 2. In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still.
Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved memory support. This Socket CPU runs at 3.
Sempron 3400+ Review
We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. The story is the same in LightWave rendering. The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster.
In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely. There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:.
Also, we used the rundll In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit. With a serious advantage in cache size, semprpn would expect the Athlon 64 to perform better, but it also costs more. The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional.
In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel. We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3. Now we turn to actual performance using real applications.
AMD has moved the Sempron line away from Socket A and all the motherboard eccentricities that went along with it, so we have no problem recommending it for low-cost machines.
AMD has a winner here, despite the relatively high price. All make fairly heavy use of the processor and memory subsystem.
The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1. We can say this, though: The hard drives were defragged prior to each major benchmark run. The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, wmd it really hurts them. The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options.
We used Adobe After Effects 6.
Sempron + Review – Hardware Secrets
The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge. The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: