AMD Sempron: A Fresh Take on Budget Computing
by Derek Wilson on July 28, 2004 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Two Flavors are Better than One: Socket 754
Next in line: the K8 version of Sempron. In these processors, we have a little more with which to differentiate the new processors from the current generation.
Socket 754 Sempron 3100+
Not that we can see much with the heat spreader on there, but this processor is more in the tradition of budget processors, as it is based on current Athlon 64 technology with half the cache. Specifically, the Sempron 3100+ has the same size L2 cache as the Tbred Sempron: 256KB. So, AMD started out with a 1MB L2 cache derived from the Opteron, moved to a 512KB cache, and has finally dropped down to 256KB for its budget line of K8 processors.
Socket 754 Sempron 3100+
The other very interesting and pertinent bit of information is that the K8 Sempron does not support x86-64 extensions.
While this may seem like a downside at first, this will actually help out AMD. The K8 Sempron, if cache size doesn't hurt performance too much, will give AMD the ability to offer its current generation of performance to consumers at a lower price point. The performance difference between K7 and K8 architectures on a clock for clock basis is not insignificant, and bringing this to consumers at a more attractive price point is definitely not a bad thing.
Though we won't be able to test it here (we only just received samples from AMD), we will absolutely be looking into overclocking of this part. With x86-64 and half the cache disabled, we may be able to push this part pretty hard. But we'll have to save that for a future update.
Of course, again, the clock for clock comparison part is the Athlon 64 2800+ (running at 1.8GHz). With twice the cache, this part will not be outperformed by the higher rated Sempron part. Again, we feel that this just adds to the confusion in the marketplace. We have to give AMD some credit for successfully pulling off the performance rating system with their mainstream processors, and we were happy that during the Duron's run, they stuck with clocks speeds. Even though Intel's system will be tough to get a hold of for a little while, it's a much more elegant solution to the problem of selling chips based on clock speed than a performance rating meant to reflect clock speed of a theoretical processor.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
abrogard - Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - link
I think there's something should sweep through the internet: Clearly labelling the country of origin of your site! It's not clear which country we are in, often, and therefore what money we're talking.
Followed by clearly dating the page.
abrogard@yahoo.com
:)
cleanjew - Friday, January 14, 2005 - link
Hi, can someone tell me if it would be a good idea to buy a computer running an amd sepron 3000+, i would be using it to run mid range games, and i would like to use internet and productivity software at a fast speed. Do you also think it would be faster than a celeron and comparable to a p4?Thanks
If you want you could email me at jewish-mexican@charter.net
trexpesto - Saturday, August 21, 2004 - link
I just got a Shuttle AN35N and retail TBred 2700+ for ~119 incl. shipping and tax, on sale at outpost.Sparrow - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
But in the test he say's that the extra 83 MHz make the difference !!!Jens
coldpower27 - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
I am guessing Anandtech was using the Barton based 2600+, you know the one with 1.92GHZ/333FSB.Sparrow - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
???? If a Sempron 2800+ is a Thoroughbred (166*12) and the xp 2600+ is a Thoroughbred (166*12.5) why can the Sempron be faster in some test's ? an error or are there some changes in memory speed ????? !!!!!!Jens
MAME - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
awesome AMD, just awesomethis chip is very nice
coldpower27 - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
Hey Trogdor, notice I can post here now too:)Anyway, just to sum up I would like to see these processor as well.
Athlon XP-M Barton @ 2.3,2.4,2.5 using 200x11.5, 200x12, 200x12.5
Celeron Northwood-128
2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8
Celeron Prescott-256
2.4,2.53,2.66,2.8
Duron Applebred
1.4,1.8
Pentium 4 Northwood, Prescott
2.8 with FSB800
Zebo - Thursday, July 29, 2004 - link
oh LOL:)TrogdorJW - Thursday, July 29, 2004 - link
Woah, KF... that was a whole lot of stuff to post, quite a bit of it rather unrelated. You must have even more free time than me! ;)Zebo, you apparently missed the point completely: "The overlapping Athlon FX, Athlon 64, and now Sempron names is going to really cause confusion among the *less-informed* public." The less-informed public doesn't include anyone reading hardware sites or OC forums. Yeah, Sempron is the value system meant to compete with Celeron, but both AMD and Intel are happy to sell lots of slower, "crippled" chips to the uninformed buyers. The 2.8 GHz Celeron chips were absolutely terrible performers - about as fast as a P4 1.8 or 2.0 - but Intel was more than happy to dupe people into purchasing those with their high clockspeed. The Celeron D is better, but the tactic remains the same. AMD is now joining them, calling lesser processors "3100+" and "2800+" and leaving it to the salespeople.
You don't think there are going to be plenty of salespeople pushing these systems with claims like "the Sempron 2800+ is basically just as fast as a 2.8 GHz chip, and the only difference between it and the Athlon 64 2800+ is the lack of 64-bit support, which really isn't needed anyway"? In sales, it's a lot more important to get a sale than to get a big sale. They'll shoot for the big sales if possible, but when someone wants a cheap system, they'll talk up the Sempron (and/or Celeron) as though it's just as good as a more expensive Athlon64/Pentium4.
That's what I meant when I said it's creating confusion, and that the confusion is likely to be an intended consequence. Car manufacturers do the same thing: you don't want an informed purchaser coming in to buy a car! You want the salesman to have the advantage, so that they can get the buyer into *any* Ford, Chevy, Honda, etc. and keep them from going to a different store.
Most PC shos (and car dealerships) make a set amount of money off of a sale, because the hard drives, case, monitor, RAM, etc. all have markups. So if someone buys a computer, the shop makes at least $100. $100 on a $500 computer is a good return. If they buy a $1000 computer, they might make $150 to $200. Granted, on the "luxury" computer systems that cost over $2000, they'll make a killing, but those are hardly ever sold.