Is the Sempron a budget line that costs more?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.

At the same time the equivalent Athlon models have been withdrawn.

Someone pointed out that the Sempron costs more than the equivalent Athlon
cpu they replace.

So have we now got a situation where a newly-launched budget line (Sempron)
actaully costs MORE than the equivalent mainstream line (Athlon) of the same
power?

I hope i have got soemthing wromg there!
55 answers Last reply
More about sempron budget line costs more
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:55:32 +0100, Aaron R Salp
    <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:

    >Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
    >detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
    >the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.
    >
    >At the same time the equivalent Athlon models have been withdrawn.
    >
    >Someone pointed out that the Sempron costs more than the equivalent Athlon
    >cpu they replace.
    >
    >So have we now got a situation where a newly-launched budget line (Sempron)
    >actaully costs MORE than the equivalent mainstream line (Athlon) of the same
    >power?
    >
    >I hope i have got soemthing wromg there!

    Yes, for the time being you have it right, Sempron is higher
    priced. They are expected to o'c higher than the T'Bred B,
    on average, since they're desending from Thorton, but
    Thorton cores are also cheaper, and AFAIK, all Semprons are
    locked, though I could be wrong about that?

    I expect that eventually the Semprons will drop in price,
    but for the time being anyone building on socket A ought to
    snatch up a Barton while they still can.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Aaron R Salp" <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote in message
    news:9566CAB19896617E5@127.0.0.1...
    > Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
    > detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are
    > for
    > the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.
    >
    > At the same time the equivalent Athlon models have been withdrawn.
    >
    > Someone pointed out that the Sempron costs more than the equivalent Athlon
    > cpu they replace.
    >
    > So have we now got a situation where a newly-launched budget line
    > (Sempron)
    > actaully costs MORE than the equivalent mainstream line (Athlon) of the
    > same
    > power?
    >
    > I hope i have got soemthing wromg there!

    It looks about right. The Sempron XP2500 is just about £1 less than an
    Athlon XP2500, even though it has half of the L2 cache.

    Quite how the S754 Semprons line up against the A64s though, I'm not sure.

    JW
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    > I expect that eventually the Semprons will drop in price,
    > but for the time being anyone building on socket A ought to
    > snatch up a Barton while they still can.

    Agreed. While AMD is officially selling the Semprons to suppliers for
    less than the XP line (check their pricing page at amd.com), the high
    volume of low-priced Athlon XPs means that they (AXP) are the better buy
    for right now. However, once vendors and retailers start paying the
    high prices for the Athlon XP labeled chips across the board, consumers
    will see a change. Then the Semprons will be the better choice as the
    AXP label fades into oblivion and premium prices. Also, it is probably
    in AMD's best interests to move the Athlon name solely to its mainstream
    and high-performance product lines (doing so makes AMD less vulnerable
    to Intel attacks comparing Athlons (XP) to new P4s (EE and the like)).
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:

    > I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
    > power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus are
    > equivalent:
    >
    > 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    > 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    >
    > [Data taken from page linked above.]
    >
    > Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?

    They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
    Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
    with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
    resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
    subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
    Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
    >>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus are
    >>equivalent:
    >>
    >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    >>
    >>[Data taken from page linked above.]
    >>
    >>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
    >
    >
    > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
    > Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
    > with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
    > resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
    > subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
    > Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    > 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
    >

    Good info and that explains a LOT.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.09.17.00.02.45.857004@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
    > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
    >
    >> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
    >> power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
    >> are
    >> equivalent:
    >>
    >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    >>
    >> [Data taken from page linked above.]
    >>
    >> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
    >
    > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
    > Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
    > with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
    > resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
    > subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
    > Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    > 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
    >

    Good information. It would be a terrible thing to learn after buying one.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >All Semprons are rated
    >with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
    >resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
    >subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
    >Athlon rating.

    Dear Lord. What a mess.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:10kkf3ebv68go8e@corp.supernews.com...
    > Wes Newell wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
    > >>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
    are
    > >>equivalent:
    > >>
    > >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    > >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    > >>
    > >>[Data taken from page linked above.]
    > >>
    > >>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
    > >
    > >
    > > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
    > > Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are
    rated
    > > with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and
    the
    > > resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF
    you
    > > subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
    > > Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    > > 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
    > >
    >
    > Good info and that explains a LOT.
    >

    So that makes them even less value for money then!
    With computer hardware something new is usually better and often cheaper,
    doesn't seem to be the case here.

    Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating
    >> throughput power, so I don't know if I can take at face value
    >> that these two cpus are equivalent:
    >>
    >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    >>
    >> [Data taken from page linked above.]
    >>
    >> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
    >
    > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of
    > benchmarks Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+.
    > All Semprons are rated with a set of benchmarks to compare them
    > to Celerons clock speeds and the resulting PR number reflects
    > that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you subtract 400 from
    > every Semprons number, you will get the approximate Athlon
    > rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    > 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.


    Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier posting

    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html

    has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this does indeed
    give approximately that 400 unit difference in the "+" rating which you
    point out.

    In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even more than the
    corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?

    Has anyone compared actual prices?
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:95676877C99D531E75@127.0.0.1...
    > Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    > >> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating
    > >> throughput power, so I don't know if I can take at face value
    > >> that these two cpus are equivalent:
    > >>
    > >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    > >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    > >>
    > >> [Data taken from page linked above.]
    > >>
    > >> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
    > >
    > > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of
    > > benchmarks Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+.
    > > All Semprons are rated with a set of benchmarks to compare them
    > > to Celerons clock speeds and the resulting PR number reflects
    > > that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you subtract 400 from
    > > every Semprons number, you will get the approximate Athlon
    > > rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    > > 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
    >
    >
    > Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier posting
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html
    >
    > has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this does indeed
    > give approximately that 400 unit difference in the "+" rating which you
    > point out.
    >
    > In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even more than the
    > corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
    >
    > Has anyone compared actual prices?
    That is true of the top end semptrons but the 2200 semptron is £31 and
    cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang for your buck at the
    bottom end of the market
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "hugh pearce" <hwpearce@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:

    >> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier
    >> posting
    >>
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html
    >>
    >> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this
    >> does indeed give approximately that 400 unit difference in the
    >> "+" rating which you point out.
    >>
    >> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even
    >> more than the corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
    >>
    >> Has anyone compared actual prices?
    > That is true of the top end semptrons but the 2200 semptron is
    > £31 and cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang
    > for your buck at the bottom end of the market


    How much faster is th sempron 2200+ than a Duron 1600?
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "CrackerJack" <binaryblobNOTTHISBIT@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    news:9567B60C91E4C6AD265@130.133.1.4...
    > "hugh pearce" <hwpearce@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > >> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier
    > >> posting
    > >>
    > >> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html
    > >>
    > >> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this
    > >> does indeed give approximately that 400 unit difference in the
    > >> "+" rating which you point out.
    > >>
    > >> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even
    > >> more than the corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
    > >>
    > >> Has anyone compared actual prices?
    > > That is true of the top end semptrons but the 2200 semptron is
    > > £31 and cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang
    > > for your buck at the bottom end of the market
    >
    >
    > How much faster is th sempron 2200+ than a Duron 1600?
    as said earlier its about XP1800 speed Although it may be slightly faster
    dur to its higher bus speed
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "hugh pearce" <hwpearce@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:

    > "Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
    > news:95676877C99D531E75@127.0.0.1...
    >> Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> I don't know how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in indicating
    >> >> throughput power, so I don't know if I can take at face
    >> >> value that these two cpus are equivalent:
    >> >>
    >> >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    >> >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    >> >>
    >> >> [Data taken from page linked above.]
    >> >>
    >> >> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
    >> >
    >> > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of
    >> > benchmarks Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a
    >> > 2100+. All Semprons are rated with a set of benchmarks to
    >> > compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the resulting PR
    >> > number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
    >> > subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the
    >> > approximate Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would perform
    >> > the same as an Athlon 1800+, etc. And you can take that to
    >> > the bank.
    >>
    >>
    >> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier
    >> posting
    >>
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html
    >>
    >> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this
    >> does indeed give approximately that 400 unit difference in the
    >> "+" rating which you point out.
    >>
    >> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even
    >> more than the corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
    >>
    >> Has anyone compared actual prices?


    > That is true of the top end semprons but the 2200 Sempron is
    > £31 and cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang
    > for your buck at the bottom end of the market


    I calculate that the Sempron here in the UK is currently approx 25 percent
    more expensive than the equivalent Athlon .


    My local PC dealer is doing these prices (inc VAT) on boxed retail cpus:

    Sempron 2400+ £49 ($80)
    Sempron 2500+ £57
    Sempron 2600+ £64

    Athlon 2200+ £50
    Athlon 2400+ £59
    Athlon 2500+ £62
    Athlon 2600+ £69

    If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon 2200+ (see
    earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28 percent more
    expensive.

    ----

    My local dealer is a bit expensive because Simply Computers were doing these
    Athlon prices (inc VAT) for retail boxed cpu's:

    Athlon 2200+ £48
    Athlon 2400+ £51
    Athlon 2500+ £59
    Athlon 2600+ £65

    and now that Simply have dropped almost all of those Athlons and they are
    selling these:

    Sempron 2500+ £53
    Sempron 2600+ £59

    So at Simply the Sempron 2600+ is £59 and is the equivalent power to the
    Athlon 2200+ which is £48, making the Sempron 23 percent more expensive.

    ----

    Maybe the Sempron is showing the premium paid for new processors and soon
    the price will tumble?

    But surely that new processor pricing model shouldn't be applied to their
    Sempron because they are essentially Athlons which have been in production
    for some time.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:40:22 +0100, Aaron S
    <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    >But surely that new processor pricing model shouldn't be applied to their
    >Sempron because they are essentially Athlons which have been in production
    >for some time.

    New products entering a market are often priced a bit too
    high, then price normalizes after demand is less than
    anticipated, or lower than production. It is still a bit
    odd though, even a lowly Duron 1.6 is going for $48 on
    pricewatch, seems like it should've dropped to $38 already.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:40:22 +0100, Aaron S
    > <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > >But surely that new processor pricing model shouldn't be applied to their
    > >Sempron because they are essentially Athlons which have been in production
    > >for some time.
    >
    > New products entering a market are often priced a bit too
    > high, then price normalizes after demand is less than
    > anticipated, or lower than production.

    What if demand is greater than anticipated or greater than production?

    > It is still a bit
    > odd though, even a lowly Duron 1.6 is going for $48 on
    > pricewatch, seems like it should've dropped to $38 already.

    Why? They probably aren't being made any longer. Perhaps soon
    the supply of Athlon XP chips might start dwindling?
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon 2200+ (see
    > earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28 percent more
    > expensive.

    Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB, whereas
    the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it quite enough
    of a boost to justify its higher price, but the real-world PR rating
    difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Fishman wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:10kkf3ebv68go8e@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Wes Newell wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
    >>>>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
    >
    > are
    >
    >>>>equivalent:
    >>>>
    >>>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    >>>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    >>>>
    >>>>[Data taken from page linked above.]
    >>>>
    >>>>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
    >>>Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are
    >
    > rated
    >
    >>>with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and
    >
    > the
    >
    >>>resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF
    >
    > you
    >
    >>>subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
    >>>Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    >>>1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
    >>>
    >>
    >>Good info and that explains a LOT.
    >>
    >
    >
    > So that makes them even less value for money then!

    True, but it explains why I was having such a hard time making sense of the
    new numbering scheme.

    > With computer hardware something new is usually better and often cheaper,
    > doesn't seem to be the case here.

    From their vantage point it is because the Sempron replaces the Duron.

    > Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?

    AMD has always been in price trouble.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Matt wrote:
    >
    > Matt wrote:
    > > kony wrote:
    [...]
    > > Yes, and the XP 2500+ costs more today than it did a year ago.
    >
    > Maybe they can't produce the low-end chips fast enough because they've
    > given over much of their production capacity to the 64-bit chips. The
    > tide raises all boats, so to speak.
    >
    > But I am not an economist.

    But this has never happened before that a PC CPU is more expensive than
    it was a year ago AFAIK.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Lachoneus wrote:
    >> If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon
    >> 2200+ (see earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28
    >> percent more expensive.
    >
    > Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB,
    > whereas the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it
    > quite enough of a boost to justify its higher price, but the
    > real-world PR rating difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.

    FWIW, the slowest 256KB L2, 166MHz FSB Athlon XP was the 2600 at 2083MHz.
    The highest Sempron (absolutely identical to the 256KB L2, 166MHz Athlon
    XPs), the 2800, has a speed of 2000MHz, which pretty much exactly equates to
    a 2500 (if it esisted with the 256/166 spec) under the old scheme. So in
    this particular case the rating on the Sempron is very close to 300 points
    too high.

    At the lower end, we have the Sempron 2200 at 1500MHz. 1500MHz would put you
    at an 1800 rating with a 256/100 config, ~1750 (yeah, it's backwards) with a
    256/133 config, ~1950 with a 512/100 config, and ~1950 with a 512/133
    config. So it looks as though at this speed, AMD thinks that the bus speed
    has very little impact on the performance of the CPU, so a 256/166 part at
    1500MHz would be somewhere around 1850 rating or so at the most. This means
    the Sempron is overrated by about 350 points. Now, there is some variation
    at each speed, due to the requirements that the speed must be a half-integer
    multiple of the bus speed (hence why the 133MHz FSB part is "slower" than
    the 100MHz FSB part at 1500MHz). However, I would say that overall, the
    Sempron is over-rated by something in the range of 300 to 350 points.

    As for the prices in New Zealand (in order from cheapest to most expensive,
    skipping those where the lower rated part is more expensive, and including
    the two closest-in-price Athlon XP chips):

    Sempron 2400+: $106
    XP 2000+: $100
    XP 2200+: $116
    Should be XP 2100+ at ~$108 (-2%)

    Sempron 2500+: $124
    XP 2200+: $116
    XP 2400+: $133
    Should be XP 2200+ at $116 (+7%)

    Sempron 2600+: $145
    XP 2400+: $133
    XP 2500+: $148
    Should be XP 2300+ at ~$125 (+16%)

    Sempron 2800+: $187
    XP 2600+: $155
    XP 2700+: $190
    Should be XP 2500+ at $148 (+26%)

    So, the Sempron 2400+ is priced "about right". However, the 2500, 2600, and
    2800 Semprons are clearly overpriced, coming close to the price of an Athlon
    XP with a 100 point lower rating.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
    not be an issue for very long.


    Michael Brown wrote:

    > Lachoneus wrote:
    > >> If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon
    > >> 2200+ (see earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28
    > >> percent more expensive.
    > >
    > > Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB,
    > > whereas the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it
    > > quite enough of a boost to justify its higher price, but the
    > > real-world PR rating difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.
    >
    > FWIW, the slowest 256KB L2, 166MHz FSB Athlon XP was the 2600 at 2083MHz.
    > The highest Sempron (absolutely identical to the 256KB L2, 166MHz Athlon
    > XPs), the 2800, has a speed of 2000MHz, which pretty much exactly equates to
    > a 2500 (if it esisted with the 256/166 spec) under the old scheme. So in
    > this particular case the rating on the Sempron is very close to 300 points
    > too high.
    >
    > At the lower end, we have the Sempron 2200 at 1500MHz. 1500MHz would put you
    > at an 1800 rating with a 256/100 config, ~1750 (yeah, it's backwards) with a
    > 256/133 config, ~1950 with a 512/100 config, and ~1950 with a 512/133
    > config. So it looks as though at this speed, AMD thinks that the bus speed
    > has very little impact on the performance of the CPU, so a 256/166 part at
    > 1500MHz would be somewhere around 1850 rating or so at the most. This means
    > the Sempron is overrated by about 350 points. Now, there is some variation
    > at each speed, due to the requirements that the speed must be a half-integer
    > multiple of the bus speed (hence why the 133MHz FSB part is "slower" than
    > the 100MHz FSB part at 1500MHz). However, I would say that overall, the
    > Sempron is over-rated by something in the range of 300 to 350 points.
    >
    > As for the prices in New Zealand (in order from cheapest to most expensive,
    > skipping those where the lower rated part is more expensive, and including
    > the two closest-in-price Athlon XP chips):
    >
    > Sempron 2400+: $106
    > XP 2000+: $100
    > XP 2200+: $116
    > Should be XP 2100+ at ~$108 (-2%)
    >
    > Sempron 2500+: $124
    > XP 2200+: $116
    > XP 2400+: $133
    > Should be XP 2200+ at $116 (+7%)
    >
    > Sempron 2600+: $145
    > XP 2400+: $133
    > XP 2500+: $148
    > Should be XP 2300+ at ~$125 (+16%)
    >
    > Sempron 2800+: $187
    > XP 2600+: $155
    > XP 2700+: $190
    > Should be XP 2500+ at $148 (+26%)
    >
    > So, the Sempron 2400+ is priced "about right". However, the 2500, 2600, and
    > 2800 Semprons are clearly overpriced, coming close to the price of an Athlon
    > XP with a 100 point lower rating.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Brown
    > www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    > Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

    >Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
    >not be an issue for very long.
    >

    and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
    the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
    Ed
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:55:14 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

    > But this has never happened before that a PC CPU is more expensive than
    > it was a year ago AFAIK.

    Sure it has. The price of the high end 100MHz (200FSB) Tbirds went up when
    the supply got short. Too bad most perople don't realize they really don't
    have to have these to upgrade. Here's current pricing on pricewatch.

    $94 - Athlon 1.4GHz 266
    $149 - Athlon 1.4GHz 200
    $42 - Athlon 1.33GHz 266
    $56 - Athlon 1.3GHz 200
    $43 - Athlon 1.2GHz 266
    $57 - Athlon 1.2GHz 200
    $50 - Athlon 1.13GHz 266
    $61 - Athlon 1.1GHz 200
    $54 - Athlon 1GHz 200

    Now consider one could buy a $56 XP 2400+ and run it at 1500MHz (without
    overclocking the FSB) in those old 100MHz boards like the one below and it
    almost becomes comical.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ed" <nosay@home.com> wrote in message
    news:q6ook0ddkak20vpdfvib7fnluh05d86bts@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
    >>not be an issue for very long.
    >>
    >
    > and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
    > the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
    > Ed
    >
    The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
    They don't have any new features.
    --
    *****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:50:48 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com>
    wrote:

    >"Ed" <nosay@home.com> wrote in message
    >news:q6ook0ddkak20vpdfvib7fnluh05d86bts@4ax.com...
    >> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
    >>>not be an issue for very long.
    >>>
    >>
    >> and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
    >> the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
    >> Ed
    >>
    >The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
    >They don't have any new features.

    Geez, AMD should of just called those Durons then!
    Ed
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:28:18 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:55:14 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
    >
    >> But this has never happened before that a PC CPU is more expensive than
    >> it was a year ago AFAIK.
    >
    >Sure it has. The price of the high end 100MHz (200FSB) Tbirds went up when
    >the supply got short. Too bad most perople don't realize they really don't
    >have to have these to upgrade. Here's current pricing on pricewatch.
    >
    >$94 - Athlon 1.4GHz 266
    >$149 - Athlon 1.4GHz 200
    >$42 - Athlon 1.33GHz 266
    >$56 - Athlon 1.3GHz 200
    >$43 - Athlon 1.2GHz 266
    >$57 - Athlon 1.2GHz 200
    >$50 - Athlon 1.13GHz 266
    >$61 - Athlon 1.1GHz 200
    >$54 - Athlon 1GHz 200
    >
    >Now consider one could buy a $56 XP 2400+ and run it at 1500MHz (without
    >overclocking the FSB) in those old 100MHz boards like the one below and it
    >almost becomes comical.

    I agree, except that you keep ignoring that many boards
    won't run them. I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS
    K7VZM) that won't run anything Palomino or newer, and even
    133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2) that won't run
    T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those boards
    would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply
    won't run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever
    applied per chip tried), with bios released long after the
    CPUs were.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ed wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:50:48 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >"Ed" <nosay@home.com> wrote in message
    > >news:q6ook0ddkak20vpdfvib7fnluh05d86bts@4ax.com...
    > >> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
    > >>>not be an issue for very long.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
    > >> the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
    > >> Ed
    > >>
    > >The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
    > >They don't have any new features.
    >
    > Geez, AMD should of just called those Durons then!

    Not really, since the Sempron 3100+ is K8 based. My guess is that the entire
    Sempron line will probably move to K8 based chips by the end of 2005, or that
    AMD will eventually outsorce the K7 Semprons. I believe AMD has no plans to
    move K7 production to 90nm.

    >
    > Ed
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:28:27 +0000, kony wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:28:18 GMT, Wes Newell
    > <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >>Now consider one could buy a $56 XP 2400+ and run it at 1500MHz (without
    >>overclocking the FSB) in those old 100MHz boards like the one below and it
    >>almost becomes comical.
    >
    > I agree, except that you keep ignoring that many boards
    > won't run them.

    I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
    that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
    run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
    all manufacturers.


    > I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
    > Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
    > that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
    > boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
    > run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
    > tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.

    What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
    difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
    had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
    it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.:-)


    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:16:50 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    <snip>

    >I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
    >that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
    >run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
    >all manufacturers.
    >
    >
    >> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
    >> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
    >> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
    >> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
    >> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
    >> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.
    >
    >What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
    >difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
    >had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
    >it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.:-)

    OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
    100MHz FSB?
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:16:50 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


    >I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
    >that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
    >run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
    >all manufacturers.
    >
    >
    >> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
    >> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
    >> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
    >> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
    >> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
    >> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.
    >
    >What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
    >difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
    >had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
    >it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.:-)

    .... and in the case of the K7T266 Pro2, the board had been
    running an XP1600 Palomino o'c to 1.7GHz, then system was
    returned to default speed, confirmed still working properly.
    Next an XP1900 T'Bred A was tried. System DID post, was
    running at correct voltage, multiplier, FSB, Mem, but was
    severely instable, even bios screens were quickly locking
    up. Do tell what should've been changed? There was no
    power supply, heatsink/heat/etc, type of problem, other
    factors remained constant.

    There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
    attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
    without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
    person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
    with board.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:41:10 +0000, kony wrote:

    > On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:16:50 GMT, Wes Newell
    > <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
    >>that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
    >>run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
    >>all manufacturers.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
    >>> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
    >>> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
    >>> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
    >>> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
    >>> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.
    >>
    >>What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
    >>difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
    >>had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
    >>it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.:-)
    >
    > OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
    > 100MHz FSB?

    How should I know why the one you tried didn't work. There could be many
    reasons. This much I can tell you. It's not because the chipset won't
    support it. Specs for the XP cpu are for FSB's as low as 50MHz. It could
    be a problem with power, timing or many other things. Now since you don't
    have this board any more to try some things, what's the point of me
    wasteing my time guessing?

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:32:54 +0000, kony wrote:

    > ... and in the case of the K7T266 Pro2, the board had been
    > running an XP1600 Palomino o'c to 1.7GHz, then system was
    > returned to default speed, confirmed still working properly.
    > Next an XP1900 T'Bred A was tried. System DID post, was
    > running at correct voltage, multiplier, FSB, Mem, but was
    > severely instable, even bios screens were quickly locking
    > up. Do tell what should've been changed? There was no
    > power supply, heatsink/heat/etc, type of problem, other
    > factors remained constant.
    >
    > There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
    > attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
    > without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
    > person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
    > with board.

    Copied from google groups:

    From: Homer J. Simpson (hjsimpson@springfield.usa)
    Subject: Re: AMD Palomino 2100Xp CPU

    View this article only
    Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar
    Date: 2004-03-18 14:42:50 PST

    If you have the K7T266pro2(-RU) MS-6380 V2, and NOT any of the other boards
    like the K7T266pro or the K7T266pro2-A series, you can remove a tiny (1mm x
    0.5 mm) surface mount capacitor, C37, which will then allow you to run any
    266MHz FSB TBred CPU. I made this mod to my K7T266 Pro2-RU Rev. 2 and I'm
    currently running an XP2400+ TBred with complete success.

    You should also download BIOS Version 3.7 from MSI's web site and reflash
    your BIOS. This BIOS version provides proper identification of the TBred's
    during POST. This BIOS version also has 48-bit LBA support for large hard
    disks. Don't bother with BIOS Version 3.7 beta 4 as it does not have 48-bit
    LBA support.

    Check out this link at MSI's Forum for much info on this popular mod:

    http://forum.msi.com.tw/thread.php?threadid=5723&boardid=13&styleid=1


    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    They will remain at the 'expensive' equivalent price to the Athlon XP until
    stocks of the latter have disappeared, then the Sempron prices will drop.
    Dealers with stocks of Athlons do not want the cheaper Sempron leaving them
    with an Athlon investment that they can't shift. Durons have already mostly
    gone. Standard pricing practice.

    Any Sempron user experiences out there? The Sempron 2800 looks like a 'good
    bang for the buck' CPU if the price came down to more reasonable levels, say
    £50 or less.


    "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:10knkcfkv6fma9b@corp.supernews.com...
    > Fishman wrote:
    >
    >> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    >> news:10kkf3ebv68go8e@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >>>Wes Newell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
    >>>>>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
    >>
    >> are
    >>
    >>>>>equivalent:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
    >>>>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>[Data taken from page linked above.]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
    >>>>Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are
    >>
    >> rated
    >>
    >>>>with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and
    >>
    >> the
    >>
    >>>>resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF
    >>
    >> you
    >>
    >>>>subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
    >>>>Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    >>>>1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Good info and that explains a LOT.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> So that makes them even less value for money then!
    >
    > True, but it explains why I was having such a hard time making sense of
    > the new numbering scheme.
    >
    >> With computer hardware something new is usually better and often cheaper,
    >> doesn't seem to be the case here.
    >
    > From their vantage point it is because the Sempron replaces the Duron.
    >
    >> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?
    >
    > AMD has always been in price trouble.
    >
    >
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:32:47 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


    >> OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
    >> 100MHz FSB?
    >
    >How should I know why the one you tried didn't work. There could be many
    >reasons. This much I can tell you. It's not because the chipset won't
    >support it. Specs for the XP cpu are for FSB's as low as 50MHz. It could
    >be a problem with power, timing or many other things. Now since you don't
    >have this board any more to try some things, what's the point of me
    >wasteing my time guessing?

    Yes I know the chipset "can" support it, but that's not
    quite the same as the motherboard supporting it, or even
    working if not "supported".

    Point was, it can't be assumed to work, there are examples
    of it not working. It's easy to assume that somebody did
    something wrong if they don't get same results you did, but
    it's not always true, particularly when dealing with
    different parts (motherboard).
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:43:03 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


    >> There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
    >> attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
    >> without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
    >> person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
    >> with board.
    >
    >Copied from google groups:
    >
    >From: Homer J. Simpson (hjsimpson@springfield.usa)
    >Subject: Re: AMD Palomino 2100Xp CPU
    >
    >View this article only
    >Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar
    >Date: 2004-03-18 14:42:50 PST
    >
    >If you have the K7T266pro2(-RU) MS-6380 V2, and NOT any of the other boards
    >like the K7T266pro or the K7T266pro2-A series, you can remove a tiny (1mm x
    >0.5 mm) surface mount capacitor, C37, which will then allow you to run any
    >266MHz FSB TBred CPU. I made this mod to my K7T266 Pro2-RU Rev. 2 and I'm
    >currently running an XP2400+ TBred with complete success.
    >
    >You should also download BIOS Version 3.7 from MSI's web site and reflash
    >your BIOS. This BIOS version provides proper identification of the TBred's
    >during POST. This BIOS version also has 48-bit LBA support for large hard
    >disks. Don't bother with BIOS Version 3.7 beta 4 as it does not have 48-bit
    >LBA support.
    >
    >Check out this link at MSI's Forum for much info on this popular mod:
    >
    >http://forum.msi.com.tw/thread.php?threadid=5723&boardid=13&styleid=1

    Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
    board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
    Palomino still, today.

    If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
    with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
    work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
    that won't work.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
    >Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
    >with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
    >resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
    >subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
    >Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
    >1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.

    As Athlon PR ratings are supposed to align to the Intel P4 of
    comparable performance and Sempron to the equivalent Celeron, this
    might imply this "400MHz difference" rule could also be applied to P4s
    and Celerons?

    Having seen how abysmally Celerons perform in real applications I just
    don't buy it!

    --
    >iv< Paul >iv<
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:

    >> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?

    >I'm sure they set their prices so as to maximize their profit, whether
    >they "need" it or not.

    >And I doubt they are in trouble. They make great CPUs!

    It's somewhat naive to assume a company isn't in trouble just because
    it makes great products!

    AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
    probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
    the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
    I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
    billion$ in cash.

    --
    >iv< Paul >iv<
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:05:26 +0100, Paul Hopwood
    <paul@hopwood.org.uk> wrote:

    >Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?
    >
    >>I'm sure they set their prices so as to maximize their profit, whether
    >>they "need" it or not.
    >
    >>And I doubt they are in trouble. They make great CPUs!
    >
    >It's somewhat naive to assume a company isn't in trouble just because
    >it makes great products!
    >
    >AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
    >probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
    >the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
    >I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
    >billion$ in cash.

    Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
    and are in the black now.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:22:27 -0500, Ed <nosay@home.com> wrote:
    >
    >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:50:48 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
    >>They don't have any new features.
    >
    >Geez, AMD should of just called those Durons then!

    That's basically what they're doing, except that the Duron brand name
    never really caught on. They are hoping that the new Sempron brand
    name will catch on with customers were Duron failed. From a marketing
    perspective it's not a bad idea, though most of us techies don't like
    it very much.

    FWIW the real deal on the Sempr0n line is in their mobile chips.
    These look like they should be EXCELLENT bargains. They are all
    Athlon64-based, dirt-cheap and are available as low-voltage models
    with a maximum power consumption of only 25W.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:10:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    >
    >On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:05:26 +0100, Paul Hopwood
    ><paul@hopwood.org.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>It's somewhat naive to assume a company isn't in trouble just because
    >>it makes great products!
    >>
    >>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
    >>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
    >>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
    >>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
    >>billion$ in cash.
    >
    >Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
    >and are in the black now.

    AMD's profit/loss always seems to be more determined by how their
    flash business is doing anyway. The CPU line has pretty much always
    been hovering right around the break-even point, never making much
    money but never losing much.

    Flash, on the other hand, sometimes lost AMD boatloads of money, but
    at times like right now it is very profitable. This current quarter
    should probably see very decent profits for AMD because their flash
    business has been doing really well for the past few months.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:40:16 +0100, Paul Hopwood <paul@hopwood.org.uk>
    wrote:
    >
    >Aaron R Salp <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
    >>detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
    >>the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.
    >
    >I always thought that's what the Duron was for.

    Consider 'Sempron' as the new name for 'Duron' and things will make
    more sense. The 'Duron' brand name never caught on and it was
    actually discontinued about a year ago (if you check AMD's website
    you'll notice that they no longer sell the Duron and it's listed as a
    legacy product alongside the K6 line). Sempron is just a new name but
    designed for fill the same market.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:41:18 +0000, kony wrote:

    > On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:43:03 GMT, Wes Newell
    > <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
    >>> attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
    >>> without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
    >>> person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
    >>> with board.
    >>
    >>Copied from google groups:
    >>
    >>From: Homer J. Simpson (hjsimpson@springfield.usa)
    >>Subject: Re: AMD Palomino 2100Xp CPU
    >>
    >>View this article only
    >>Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar
    >>Date: 2004-03-18 14:42:50 PST
    >>
    >>If you have the K7T266pro2(-RU) MS-6380 V2, and NOT any of the other boards
    >>like the K7T266pro or the K7T266pro2-A series, you can remove a tiny (1mm x
    >>0.5 mm) surface mount capacitor, C37, which will then allow you to run any
    >>266MHz FSB TBred CPU. I made this mod to my K7T266 Pro2-RU Rev. 2 and I'm
    >>currently running an XP2400+ TBred with complete success.
    >>
    >>You should also download BIOS Version 3.7 from MSI's web site and reflash
    >>your BIOS. This BIOS version provides proper identification of the TBred's
    >>during POST. This BIOS version also has 48-bit LBA support for large hard
    >>disks. Don't bother with BIOS Version 3.7 beta 4 as it does not have 48-bit
    >>LBA support.
    >>
    >>Check out this link at MSI's Forum for much info on this popular mod:
    >>
    >>http://forum.msi.com.tw/thread.php?threadid=5723&boardid=13&styleid=1
    >
    > Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
    > board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
    > Palomino still, today.
    >
    > If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
    > with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
    > work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
    > that won't work.

    I'm goimg to ignore a board that one person can't get to work while there
    are many others with the same model board that it does work with. So if
    jack, James, Tom , Tim , etc. have success, but Dumas doesn't, you
    consider that to mean the board doesn't work? I consider it just a
    defective board or the person didn't...... If only one person can get it
    to work that's proof enough to me, taking in the fact there's abosolutely
    no reason it shouldn't work.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:07:13 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


    >> Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
    >> board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
    >> Palomino still, today.
    >>
    >> If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
    >> with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
    >> work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
    >> that won't work.
    >
    >I'm goimg to ignore a board that one person can't get to work while there
    >are many others with the same model board that it does work with. So if
    >jack, James, Tom , Tim , etc. have success, but Dumas doesn't, you
    >consider that to mean the board doesn't work? I consider it just a
    >defective board or the person didn't...... If only one person can get it
    >to work that's proof enough to me, taking in the fact there's abosolutely
    >no reason it shouldn't work.

    Except that if that "one person" did nothing differently in
    order to get it to work, there is another variable involved.
    If you, I, and everyone else can't identify that variable,
    then any effected boards can't be assumed to work. I
    mentioned a specific board and you yourself had no working
    resolution, so why do you expect it would "magically" work
    for someone else?

    Again, board ran fine, before CPU swap, after original CPU
    was reinstall, and still today OC'd, nearly 2 years later.
    Voltage, multiplier, FSB, Mem, were all correct and system
    ran with same settings except different multiplier and
    voltage with the Palomino. It posted, could get into bios
    but soon locked up, OS wouldn't load either... severely
    instable.

    Alluding to a theory that doesn't always work in practice
    is normally a reason to reformulate the theory. Vaguely
    claiming "someone must have done something wrong" doesn't
    quite cut it if you can't identify what was wrong, so
    ultimately, in the end it did NOT work.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:35:33 +0000, kony wrote:

    > On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:32:47 GMT, Wes Newell
    > <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
    >>> 100MHz FSB?
    >>
    >>How should I know why the one you tried didn't work. There could be many
    >>reasons. This much I can tell you. It's not because the chipset won't
    >>support it. Specs for the XP cpu are for FSB's as low as 50MHz. It could
    >>be a problem with power, timing or many other things. Now since you don't
    >>have this board any more to try some things, what's the point of me
    >>wasteing my time guessing?
    >
    > Yes I know the chipset "can" support it, but that's not
    > quite the same as the motherboard supporting it, or even
    > working if not "supported".
    >
    i guess that depends on your interpretation of support. AFAIK, there are
    no manufactures that make a KT133 chipset board that even claims to
    support XP cpu's. But as you know that' doesn't mean they won't work.

    > Point was, it can't be assumed to work, there are examples
    > of it not working. It's easy to assume that somebody did
    > something wrong if they don't get same results you did, but
    > it's not always true, particularly when dealing with
    > different parts (motherboard).

    If I could remember all the KT133 boards that I know do run XP cpu's, the
    list would be very long and include boards from drom all the well know
    manufactures and some not so well known. All you have to do to verify this
    is search back through the AMD news groups for messages from me. Might
    take some time though.:-)

    Results 1 - 10 of about 12,600 for wes newell. (0.36 seconds)

    But starting with Abit, all their KT133/A boards (KT7's) will run all
    cores. Asus, all A7V's, MSI K7T's (just upgraded my borthers first model
    MSI K7T board to Tbred B core). etc., etc.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

    >>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
    >>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
    >>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
    >>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
    >>billion$ in cash.

    >Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
    >and are in the black now.

    Actually, isn't that what I just said? ;-)

    --
    >iv< Paul >iv<
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

    >>>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
    >>>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
    >>>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
    >>>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
    >>>billion$ in cash.

    >>Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
    >>and are in the black now.

    >AMD's profit/loss always seems to be more determined by how their
    >flash business is doing anyway. The CPU line has pretty much always
    >been hovering right around the break-even point, never making much
    >money but never losing much.

    Probably true a while ago but their earnings from CPU operations have
    been performing better than memory sales for a while now, making
    significantly better profits (or lower losses) against marginally
    lower revenues.

    >Flash, on the other hand, sometimes lost AMD boatloads of money, but
    >at times like right now it is very profitable. This current quarter
    >should probably see very decent profits for AMD because their flash
    >business has been doing really well for the past few months.

    It's probably true to say the flash market is more volatile so has a
    more severe effect on AMDs financial performance than the (relatively)
    stable CPU market. AMD seems to be doing rather well in both markets
    at the moment and reporting healthy profits as a result. Their
    exposure to both markets is such that a relatively small shift in
    either market can make or break the company.

    --
    >iv< Paul >iv<
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:

    >>As Athlon PR ratings are supposed to align to the Intel P4 of
    >>comparable performance

    >AMD has repeatedly said that IS NOT true.

    ......while consistently managing to make them fairly close and failing
    to explain adequately what it's actually based on. Hmmmmmm.. ;-)

    --
    >iv< Paul >iv<
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Paul Hopwood wrote:
    > Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>As Athlon PR ratings are supposed to align to the Intel P4 of
    >>>comparable performance
    >
    >
    >>AMD has repeatedly said that IS NOT true.
    >
    >
    > .....while consistently managing to make them fairly close and failing
    > to explain adequately what it's actually based on. Hmmmmmm.. ;-)

    They've explained in excruciating detail what the 'XP' rating is based on:
    a suite of benchmarks comparing it to the performance of the classic athlon
    and what clock rate the 'classic' would have to run at, if it could, to
    match the performance of the XP processor being tested.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:47:55 +0100, Paul Hopwood
    <paul@hopwood.org.uk> wrote:

    >kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
    >>>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
    >>>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
    >>>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
    >>>billion$ in cash.
    >
    >>Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
    >>and are in the black now.
    >
    >Actually, isn't that what I just said? ;-)


    then i agree?
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

    >>>>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
    >>>>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
    >>>>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
    >>>>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
    >>>>billion$ in cash.

    >>>Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
    >>>and are in the black now.

    >>Actually, isn't that what I just said? ;-)

    >then i agree?

    Funny that.. so do I. ;-)

    --
    >iv< Paul >iv<
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Sempron AMD