64-bit Semprons

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hello everyone,

Now that AMD sells "64-bit enabled Semprons", I am left to wonder:

What are the differences between 90nm "64-bit enabled" 754-pin
Semprons and 90nm 939-pin Athlon 64s?

1. The Sempron's memory controller is single channel while the
Athlon's is dual channel. Is that right?

2. The Athlon comes with 512KB L2 cache (sometimes 1MB for the 4000+
and some dual-cores) while the Sempron comes with 256KB (sometimes
only 128KB??) Is that right?

Are there other differences? Do the latest Semprons (are they also
called revision E?) support SSE3 like Venice cores do?

--
Regards
16 answers Last reply
More about semprons
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Yes, right on all counts. You answered your own questions. :-)

    Yousuf Khan
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    I was wondering the same thing, and I'd say go with a S939 system.
    There isn't much difference in price between the lowest end Athlon 64
    and the highest end Sempron 64. The Semprons only make sense if you get
    one of the mid-priced or lower varieties, but then those ones don't
    have the 64-bit capability (yet).

    Yousuf Khan
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:56:50 +0200, Nudge <honeypot@kma.eu.org> wrote:

    >Hello everyone,
    >
    >Now that AMD sells "64-bit enabled Semprons", I am left to wonder:
    >
    >What are the differences between 90nm "64-bit enabled" 754-pin
    >Semprons and 90nm 939-pin Athlon 64s?
    >
    >1. The Sempron's memory controller is single channel while the
    >Athlon's is dual channel. Is that right?

    Nope. It's a dual-channel controller in the chip, but in Socket 754
    form it can only use one channel while in Socket 939 form it uses
    dual-channel.

    To date the only place I've seen a Socket 939 Sempron sold is in HP's
    dx5150 computer, but by all accounts they are on their way.

    >2. The Athlon comes with 512KB L2 cache (sometimes 1MB for the 4000+
    >and some dual-cores) while the Sempron comes with 256KB (sometimes
    >only 128KB??) Is that right?

    That is correct.

    >Are there other differences? Do the latest Semprons (are they also
    >called revision E?) support SSE3 like Venice cores do?

    Yes, they do indeed support SSE3 (for what little that's worth). They
    also sport the slightly updated memory controller.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Nudge wrote:
    > YKhan wrote:
    > > I was wondering the same thing, and I'd say go with a S939 system.
    > > There isn't much difference in price between the lowest end Athlon 64
    > > and the highest end Sempron 64. The Semprons only make sense if you get
    > > one of the mid-priced or lower varieties, but then those ones don't
    > > have the 64-bit capability (yet).
    >
    > According to AMD's website, even the low-end Semprons are 64-bit
    > enabled. I'm taking a hard look at the 2800+ which has the following
    > characteristics: 1.6 GHz, 256KB L2 cache, FSB333.
    >
    > (I was unaware S754 Semprons did not (??) support DDR400...
    > Is that another difference to add to my list? Or is my information
    > incorrect? I thought FSB333 was for Socket-A Semprons?)
    >
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html
    >
    > 3400+ (64-bit enabled) $134
    > 3300+ (64-bit enabled) $126
    > 3100+ (64-bit enabled) $106
    > 3000+ (64-bit enabled) $91
    > 2800+ (64-bit enabled) $78
    > 2600+ (64-bit enabled) $64
    >
    > Where I live, one can buy a Sempron 2800+ for 76 EUR while the
    > cheapest 90nm S939 A64 i.e. 3000+ costs 138 EUR.

    good luck finding a 2600+ Sempron which is 64 bit enabled? I would be
    weary of a listing of a 64-bit fsb 333, seems someone copied the wrong
    description. Also you do not mention if its boxed, or an OEM chip, that
    could be the difference in your price. You should be able to pick up a
    OEM chip for a good price. Pricewatch does list socket 754 Semprons
    boxed for that price, no mention of fsb on the descriptions. Seems that
    soon we should be all in 64-bit heaven, no reason not to use one now
    with prices like that.

    rthoreau
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    This must be an update, because just a few days ago I was looking
    around (though not on the AMD website itself) and it was mentioned that
    only the highest end Sempron 3400+ was going to be 64-bit enabled.

    I'd say that when you buy the Sempron that you make sure that you
    receive the 64-bit one and not the 32-bit one. Also the 2600+ range
    seems to be most confusing, there are three models of it, one is a
    Socket A, one is a Socket 754 32-bit, and the other is Socket 754
    64-bit.

    Yousuf Khan
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    YKhan wrote:
    > I was wondering the same thing, and I'd say go with a S939 system.
    > There isn't much difference in price between the lowest end Athlon 64
    > and the highest end Sempron 64. The Semprons only make sense if you get
    > one of the mid-priced or lower varieties, but then those ones don't
    > have the 64-bit capability (yet).

    According to AMD's website, even the low-end Semprons are 64-bit
    enabled. I'm taking a hard look at the 2800+ which has the following
    characteristics: 1.6 GHz, 256KB L2 cache, FSB333.

    (I was unaware S754 Semprons did not (??) support DDR400...
    Is that another difference to add to my list? Or is my information
    incorrect? I thought FSB333 was for Socket-A Semprons?)

    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html

    3400+ (64-bit enabled) $134
    3300+ (64-bit enabled) $126
    3100+ (64-bit enabled) $106
    3000+ (64-bit enabled) $91
    2800+ (64-bit enabled) $78
    2600+ (64-bit enabled) $64

    Where I live, one can buy a Sempron 2800+ for 76 EUR while the
    cheapest 90nm S939 A64 i.e. 3000+ costs 138 EUR.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Felger Carbon wrote:
    > Video card? Why in the world would I want a video card when I have
    > built-in video in my K8S-MXs? Are you still buying x387 FPU add-on
    > chips for your computers? ;-)

    Reminds me of a friend who recently got a motherboard with built in
    video. He immediately wanted to get a video card for it. He doesn't
    play games, yet he was convinced that he was missing out on some
    unknown performance features of a dedicated video card, like a DVI
    output. I had to convince him that buying a video card simply for a DVI
    output is nuts. So far he seems happy with the built-in video.

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Rthoreau wrote:

    > Nudge wrote:
    >
    >>YKhan wrote:
    >>
    >>>I was wondering the same thing, and I'd say go with a S939 system.
    >>>There isn't much difference in price between the lowest end Athlon 64
    >>>and the highest end Sempron 64. The Semprons only make sense if you get
    >>>one of the mid-priced or lower varieties, but then those ones don't
    >>>have the 64-bit capability (yet).
    >>
    >>According to AMD's website, even the low-end Semprons are 64-bit
    >>enabled. I'm taking a hard look at the 2800+ which has the following
    >>characteristics: 1.6 GHz, 256KB L2 cache, FSB333.
    >>
    >>(I was unaware S754 Semprons did not (??) support DDR400...
    >>Is that another difference to add to my list? Or is my information
    >>incorrect? I thought FSB333 was for Socket-A Semprons?)
    >>
    >>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html
    >>
    >>3400+ (64-bit enabled) $134
    >>3300+ (64-bit enabled) $126
    >>3100+ (64-bit enabled) $106
    >>3000+ (64-bit enabled) $91
    >>2800+ (64-bit enabled) $78
    >>2600+ (64-bit enabled) $64
    >>
    >>Where I live, one can buy a Sempron 2800+ for 76 EUR while the
    >>cheapest 90nm S939 A64 i.e. 3000+ costs 138 EUR.
    >
    >
    > good luck finding a 2600+ Sempron which is 64 bit enabled? I would be
    > weary of a listing of a 64-bit fsb 333, seems someone copied the wrong
    > description. Also you do not mention if its boxed, or an OEM chip, that
    > could be the difference in your price. You should be able to pick up a
    > OEM chip for a good price. Pricewatch does list socket 754 Semprons
    > boxed for that price, no mention of fsb on the descriptions. Seems that
    > soon we should be all in 64-bit heaven, no reason not to use one now
    > with prices like that.

    According to this page:
    http://balusc.xs4all.nl/ned/har-cpu-amd-k8.php

    All Socket-754 Semprons support FSB400.
    Stepping E3 brings SSE3.
    Stepping E6 brings AMD64.

    Thus, I am looking for... SDA2800BXBOX (E6)

    e.g. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819104245
    $76 at Newegg.

    I am still wondering: what king of video card do people put in
    Socket-754 systems? Do they go for an expensive MB that supports
    PCI-Express, or do they live with an AGP video card, with little
    hope to upgrade in the future?
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Nudge" <honeypot@kma.eu.org> wrote in message
    news:42f3f058$0$24307$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
    >
    > I am still wondering: what king of video card do people put in
    > Socket-754 systems? Do they go for an expensive MB that supports
    > PCI-Express, or do they live with an AGP video card, with little
    > hope to upgrade in the future?

    Video card? Why in the world would I want a video card when I have
    built-in video in my K8S-MXs? Are you still buying x387 FPU add-on
    chips for your computers? ;-)
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Nudge wrote:
    > Rthoreau wrote:
    >
    > > Nudge wrote:
    > >
    > >>YKhan wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>I was wondering the same thing, and I'd say go with a S939 system.
    > >>>There isn't much difference in price between the lowest end Athlon 64
    > >>>and the highest end Sempron 64. The Semprons only make sense if you get
    > >>>one of the mid-priced or lower varieties, but then those ones don't
    > >>>have the 64-bit capability (yet).
    > >>
    > >>According to AMD's website, even the low-end Semprons are 64-bit
    > >>enabled. I'm taking a hard look at the 2800+ which has the following
    > >>characteristics: 1.6 GHz, 256KB L2 cache, FSB333.
    > >>
    > >>(I was unaware S754 Semprons did not (??) support DDR400...
    > >>Is that another difference to add to my list? Or is my information
    > >>incorrect? I thought FSB333 was for Socket-A Semprons?)
    > >>
    > >>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html
    > >>
    > >>3400+ (64-bit enabled) $134
    > >>3300+ (64-bit enabled) $126
    > >>3100+ (64-bit enabled) $106
    > >>3000+ (64-bit enabled) $91
    > >>2800+ (64-bit enabled) $78
    > >>2600+ (64-bit enabled) $64
    > >>
    > >>Where I live, one can buy a Sempron 2800+ for 76 EUR while the
    > >>cheapest 90nm S939 A64 i.e. 3000+ costs 138 EUR.
    > >
    > >
    > > good luck finding a 2600+ Sempron which is 64 bit enabled? I would be
    > > weary of a listing of a 64-bit fsb 333, seems someone copied the wrong
    > > description. Also you do not mention if its boxed, or an OEM chip, that
    > > could be the difference in your price. You should be able to pick up a
    > > OEM chip for a good price. Pricewatch does list socket 754 Semprons
    > > boxed for that price, no mention of fsb on the descriptions. Seems that
    > > soon we should be all in 64-bit heaven, no reason not to use one now
    > > with prices like that.
    >
    > According to this page:
    > http://balusc.xs4all.nl/ned/har-cpu-amd-k8.php
    >
    > All Socket-754 Semprons support FSB400.
    > Stepping E3 brings SSE3.
    > Stepping E6 brings AMD64.
    >
    > Thus, I am looking for... SDA2800BXBOX (E6)
    >
    > e.g. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819104245
    > $76 at Newegg.
    >
    > I am still wondering: what king of video card do people put in
    > Socket-754 systems? Do they go for an expensive MB that supports
    > PCI-Express, or do they live with an AGP video card, with little
    > hope to upgrade in the future?

    They make nforce 4 socket 754 boards, with PCI-E, Epox makes a nice
    solution which has 3 dimm slots, of course MSI also makes a nice choice
    as well. If your going to buy a graphics card I would go PCI-E, no need
    to limit your self with agp.

    I must admit that the other posters have a valid concern, if this is a
    cheap box, then adding a graphics card might not be the best use of
    money, but if you game once in a while it would not hurt to have one,
    just make sure its like a 6200 based, or better card.

    As you know now we are spliting hairs, if you decide to buy a graphics
    card, you might as well get more memory. Games such as BF2 like memory,
    it used to be that 512 mb's was great for gaming now its at least 1 gig
    or more, bf2 likes about 1.5 gigs just to run good.

    At this rate you might as well get yourself a 939 ati board, you can
    have one for as little as 85 dollars, that would save the difference on
    the graphics card.

    So moral of story is, if the person is going to game, then you really
    should consider a 939 board, your only talking about the difference
    between the cpu's cost. If its a non gamer then socket 754 is ok find
    one with igp. Even then you can find a 939 igp board that cost about
    the same as a 754 board.

    Also remember that igp boards usually have some sort of memory sharing
    going on between main memory and graphics memory, so it would bewise to
    get more memory anyway. This of course depends on your use, it is
    possible to run Gnu/Linux *bsd with less then 256 memory nowadays. Most
    people who want cheap boxes will not like this choice, if children will
    be using this system they will want all the speed they can get.

    I gave up long ago trying to give advice to people who think they know
    what they want. As it turns out they want a system that cost twice as
    much, and will gripe every chance they get because their buddies dell
    plays game x faster then their box.

    In a case like that its sometimes better to just tell them to go out
    and buy a dell, that way they at least think they are getting a better
    deal.

    Rthoreau
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Johannes wrote:
    > I would expect all x86 processors to be 64 bits soon for compatibility
    > reasons. BTW a year ago I had a big discussion here because I build my
    > PC with a Intel P4 Northwood. The criticisms I met was because it wasn't
    > 64 bit. But where is retail Windows64 and 64 bit software?

    Both are available now.

    Yousuf Khan
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    YKhan wrote:
    >
    > I was wondering the same thing, and I'd say go with a S939 system.
    > There isn't much difference in price between the lowest end Athlon 64
    > and the highest end Sempron 64. The Semprons only make sense if you get
    > one of the mid-priced or lower varieties, but then those ones don't
    > have the 64-bit capability (yet).
    >
    > Yousuf Khan

    I would expect all x86 processors to be 64 bits soon for compatibility
    reasons. BTW a year ago I had a big discussion here because I build my
    PC with a Intel P4 Northwood. The criticisms I met was because it wasn't
    64 bit. But where is retail Windows64 and 64 bit software?
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1123439012.954473.129980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Johannes wrote:
    > > I would expect all x86 processors to be 64 bits soon for
    compatibility
    > > reasons. BTW a year ago I had a big discussion here because I
    build my
    > > PC with a Intel P4 Northwood. The criticisms I met was because it
    wasn't
    > > 64 bit. But where is retail Windows64 and 64 bit software?
    >
    > Both are available now.

    J's point was, 64-bit is not yet *required* to run mainstream PC
    applications. The analogy is to the 386: it took many years after
    the *appearance* of the first 386-enabled applications until (like
    now) if you can't run 386 code, you really can't "live" in the PC
    mainstream. That's why nobody, but nobody, runs PC code on 286s these
    days.

    The question is, how long will it be until you absolutely must have an
    x86-64 CPU before you can "live" in the PC mainstream? Not anytime
    soon, I'll wager. ;-)
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:22:29 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
    wrote:

    >"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:1123439012.954473.129980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >> Johannes wrote:
    >> > I would expect all x86 processors to be 64 bits soon for
    >compatibility
    >> > reasons. BTW a year ago I had a big discussion here because I
    >build my
    >> > PC with a Intel P4 Northwood. The criticisms I met was because it
    >wasn't
    >> > 64 bit. But where is retail Windows64 and 64 bit software?
    >>
    >> Both are available now.
    >
    >J's point was, 64-bit is not yet *required* to run mainstream PC
    >applications. The analogy is to the 386: it took many years after
    >the *appearance* of the first 386-enabled applications until (like
    >now) if you can't run 386 code, you really can't "live" in the PC
    >mainstream. That's why nobody, but nobody, runs PC code on 286s these
    >days.

    He *did* ask "where is retail Windows64...?" Uhh, it's right there at any
    online vendor for those who want it, e.g.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102034

    Granted many drivers are still labeled as Beta and I haven't taken the
    plunge myself yet.:-)

    >The question is, how long will it be until you absolutely must have an
    >x86-64 CPU before you can "live" in the PC mainstream? Not anytime
    >soon, I'll wager. ;-)

    Obviously servers and workstations are first and PTC, among others, has had
    x86-64 versions of its engineering stuff available for a few months. The
    game companies are not far behind. This has been discussed before but I
    don't expect to see anywhere like the delay from 16 -> 32-bits for software
    apps.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:22:29 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

    > "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1123439012.954473.129980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >> Johannes wrote:
    >> > I would expect all x86 processors to be 64 bits soon for
    > compatibility
    >> > reasons. BTW a year ago I had a big discussion here because I
    > build my
    >> > PC with a Intel P4 Northwood. The criticisms I met was because it
    > wasn't
    >> > 64 bit. But where is retail Windows64 and 64 bit software?
    >>
    >> Both are available now.
    >
    > J's point was, 64-bit is not yet *required* to run mainstream PC
    > applications. The analogy is to the 386: it took many years after
    > the *appearance* of the first 386-enabled applications until (like
    > now) if you can't run 386 code, you really can't "live" in the PC
    > mainstream. That's why nobody, but nobody, runs PC code on 286s these
    > days.

    I see the difference (bad analogy, BTW) that the '386 didn't really
    peerform that much better than the '286. AMD64 is an improvement, even if
    M$ is late to the prom.

    > The question is, how long will it be until you absolutely must have an
    > x86-64 CPU before you can "live" in the PC mainstream? Not anytime
    > soon, I'll wager. ;-)

    Look on AFC and you'll find people "living" on ancient DEC machines. Your
    point is? The fact is that AMD84 is cheap (unlike the '386), so why not?

    --
    Keith
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    > I see the difference (bad analogy, BTW) that the '386 didn't really
    > peerform that much better than the '286.

    Uh, you say what? Megahertz for megahertz, the 386 was a bit faster at a
    given clock speed even running straight real-mode 16-bit code - and for "286
    compatible, but requiring expanded/extended memory" stuff like Windows 3.x
    it was *much* faster at the same clock speed.

    It wasn't even just memory bandwidth, since 386SXs at the same clock speed
    would beat the heck out of 286s if you had to go to EMS/XMS... having had a
    late 286/16 laptop and a 386SX/16 desktop, I can say that with a fair bit of
    personal experience.

    --
    Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

    "I do have a cause, though. It is Obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Product