XP3000+ compared?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Hello,

As I noted in another post, I am going to bump up the processor on my ASRock
K7S8XE+ that I use for rendering plug-ins. I keep the machine very lean as
to background processes and have only recently found a few plug-ins that
slow down it's Duron 1.3G. But it is time to upgrade it a little.

How much real-life drop off is there from an XP3000+ @ 400 to one @ 333FSB?

Then again, how much drop off in everyday performance is there from an
XP3000+ @333 to a Sempron3000+ @333?


The Sempron3000+ 333 sure seems attractive from the price point, but best
bang for buck is only applicable if the drop off is only marginal.




Thanks as usual.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Jess Fertudei wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As I noted in another post, I am going to bump up the processor on my ASRock
> K7S8XE+ that I use for rendering plug-ins. I keep the machine very lean as
> to background processes and have only recently found a few plug-ins that
> slow down it's Duron 1.3G. But it is time to upgrade it a little.
>
> How much real-life drop off is there from an XP3000+ @ 400 to one @ 333FSB?

It depends on what one is doing. In some things the 333 FSB version is
actually faster by a percent, or so, because it increases clock speed to
compensate for the lower bus speed and if the app isn't memory intensive
the extra speed can over compensate. One the other hand, with memory
intensive applications, like video editing, it comes out 3 to 4% slower
because of the slower FSB.

It's supposed to be roughly a wash, on average, which is why they have the
same rating but, in practice, I'd say the 400 FSB is a percent or two faster.


> Then again, how much drop off in everyday performance is there from an
> XP3000+ @333 to a Sempron3000+ @333?

The Sempron 3000+ is a Barton core at 2 GHz whereas the XP 3000+ is a
Barton core at 2.167 GHz. So, scaling it to the XP, a Sempron 3000+ comes
out about a 2700+. Since you're looking at the same FSB for both processors
the XP should be roughly 11% faster.


> The Sempron3000+ 333 sure seems attractive from the price point, but best
> bang for buck is only applicable if the drop off is only marginal.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks as usual.
>
>
>
>
>

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:57:06 -0500, Jess Fertudei wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As I noted in another post, I am going to bump up the processor on my
> ASRock K7S8XE+ that I use for rendering plug-ins. I keep the machine very
> lean as to background processes and have only recently found a few
> plug-ins that slow down it's Duron 1.3G. But it is time to upgrade it a
> little.
>
> How much real-life drop off is there from an XP3000+ @ 400 to one @
> 333FSB?
>
> Then again, how much drop off in everyday performance is there from an
> XP3000+ @333 to a Sempron3000+ @333?
>
>
> The Sempron3000+ 333 sure seems attractive from the price point, but best
> bang for buck is only applicable if the drop off is only marginal.
>

Tomshardware wrote an article about the benefits of the Sempron 3100 oc'd
which might help ewith your dilema.

The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000. AMD rolled the XP line into the Sempron
line.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jaster wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:57:06 -0500, Jess Fertudei wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>As I noted in another post, I am going to bump up the processor on my
>>ASRock K7S8XE+ that I use for rendering plug-ins. I keep the machine very
>>lean as to background processes and have only recently found a few
>>plug-ins that slow down it's Duron 1.3G. But it is time to upgrade it a
>>little.
>>
>>How much real-life drop off is there from an XP3000+ @ 400 to one @
>>333FSB?
>>
>>Then again, how much drop off in everyday performance is there from an
>>XP3000+ @333 to a Sempron3000+ @333?
>>
>>
>>The Sempron3000+ 333 sure seems attractive from the price point, but best
>>bang for buck is only applicable if the drop off is only marginal.
>>
>
>
> Tomshardware wrote an article about the benefits of the Sempron 3100 oc'd
> which might help ewith your dilema.
>
> The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000. AMD rolled the XP line into the Sempron
> line.
>

It's true that Semprons are XPs by another name but the 'performance
rating' numbers are not the same as they changed what they're 'comparing
to'. XPs were to compete against the P4. Semprons compete with the Celeron.

XPs of the same number are faster.

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:57:51 -0600, David Maynard wrote:

> jaster wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:57:06 -0500, Jess Fertudei wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>As I noted in another post, I am going to bump up the processor on my
>>>ASRock K7S8XE+ that I use for rendering plug-ins. I keep the machine
>>>very lean as to background processes and have only recently found a few
>>>plug-ins that slow down it's Duron 1.3G. But it is time to upgrade it a
>>>little.
>>>
>>>How much real-life drop off is there from an XP3000+ @ 400 to one @
>>>333FSB?
>>>
>>>Then again, how much drop off in everyday performance is there from an
>>>XP3000+ @333 to a Sempron3000+ @333?
>>>
>>>
>>>The Sempron3000+ 333 sure seems attractive from the price point, but
>>>best bang for buck is only applicable if the drop off is only marginal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Tomshardware wrote an article about the benefits of the Sempron 3100
>> oc'd which might help ewith your dilema.
>>
>> The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000. AMD rolled the XP line into the
>> Sempron line.
>>
>>
> It's true that Semprons are XPs by another name but the 'performance
> rating' numbers are not the same as they changed what they're 'comparing
> to'. XPs were to compete against the P4. Semprons compete with the
> Celeron.
>
> XPs of the same number are faster.


Yes slightly faster by 2-5% right?

I thought AMD decided hey we have this product line that's still pretty
good so why not just change it's name and competitor? Go down a weight
class.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jaster wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:57:51 -0600, David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>jaster wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:57:06 -0500, Jess Fertudei wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>As I noted in another post, I am going to bump up the processor on my
>>>>ASRock K7S8XE+ that I use for rendering plug-ins. I keep the machine
>>>>very lean as to background processes and have only recently found a few
>>>>plug-ins that slow down it's Duron 1.3G. But it is time to upgrade it a
>>>>little.
>>>>
>>>>How much real-life drop off is there from an XP3000+ @ 400 to one @
>>>>333FSB?
>>>>
>>>>Then again, how much drop off in everyday performance is there from an
>>>>XP3000+ @333 to a Sempron3000+ @333?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Sempron3000+ 333 sure seems attractive from the price point, but
>>>>best bang for buck is only applicable if the drop off is only marginal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Tomshardware wrote an article about the benefits of the Sempron 3100
>>>oc'd which might help ewith your dilema.
>>>
>>>The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000. AMD rolled the XP line into the
>>>Sempron line.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It's true that Semprons are XPs by another name but the 'performance
>>rating' numbers are not the same as they changed what they're 'comparing
>>to'. XPs were to compete against the P4. Semprons compete with the
>>Celeron.
>>
>>XPs of the same number are faster.
>
>
>
> Yes slightly faster by 2-5% right?

I think the number is closer to 11% (for the Sempron 3000+ vs the XP 3000+)
but I haven't done a comparison across the entire line.


> I thought AMD decided hey we have this product line that's still pretty
> good so why not just change it's name and competitor? Go down a weight
> class.

Basically, yes. Of course, they had to change the 'name' in order to change
the speed rating because it would be bizarre, indeed, to have two different
speeds with exactly the same name/rating designation.

Anyone remember that the reason they gave for the speed 'rating' was to
make it *easier* to compare processors? But now we're right back to "3000"
not being "3000," depending on what processor you're looking at, in just
their own lineup. Even ignoring minor issues like a 333 FSB vs 400 FSB
version of the 'same' rating, an XP 3000+ does not perform like a socket A
Sempron 3000+, which does not perform like a socket 754 Sempron 3000+,
which does not perform like an Athlon 64 3000+.

And then Intel went and fouled the whole thing up by dropping 'MHz' from
the name entirely.

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 23:00:28 -0600, David Maynard wrote:

> jaster wrote:
>
>> Yes slightly faster by 2-5% right?
>
> I think the number is closer to 11% (for the Sempron 3000+ vs the XP
> 3000+) but I haven't done a comparison across the entire line.

Tomshardware.com has a pretty complete chart comparing processor
performance from 64 3400 and 3.4E to Durons and Cels in their processor
section.


>
>> I thought AMD decided hey we have this product line that's still pretty
>> good so why not just change it's name and competitor? Go down a weight
>> class.
>
> Basically, yes. Of course, they had to change the 'name' in order to
> change the speed rating because it would be bizarre, indeed, to have two
> different speeds with exactly the same name/rating designation.
>
> Anyone remember that the reason they gave for the speed 'rating' was to
> make it *easier* to compare processors? But now we're right back to
> "3000" not being "3000," depending on what processor you're looking at,
> in just their own lineup. Even ignoring minor issues like a 333 FSB vs
> 400 FSB version of the 'same' rating, an XP 3000+ does not perform like
> a socket A Sempron 3000+, which does not perform like a socket 754
> Sempron 3000+, which does not perform like an Athlon 64 3000+.

On the 939 socket.


> And then Intel went and fouled the whole thing up by dropping 'MHz' from
> the name entirely.

Yeah, I totally give up on the Intel naming. Unless you have benchmarks
there's no way to determine processor speed or features. I think its
silly at this point to even market new cpu unless there are significant
changes in the architecture. Like AMD I think the next generation cpus
should have all current features and speeds but quieter, cooler, less
voltage and case fans can provide enough cooling to the cpu.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jaster wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 23:00:28 -0600, David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>jaster wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes slightly faster by 2-5% right?
>>
>>I think the number is closer to 11% (for the Sempron 3000+ vs the XP
>>3000+) but I haven't done a comparison across the entire line.
>
>
> Tomshardware.com has a pretty complete chart comparing processor
> performance from 64 3400 and 3.4E to Durons and Cels in their processor
> section.

Yep. I've seen it, but I didn't do a ratio for every one of them

>>>I thought AMD decided hey we have this product line that's still pretty
>>>good so why not just change it's name and competitor? Go down a weight
>>>class.
>>
>>Basically, yes. Of course, they had to change the 'name' in order to
>>change the speed rating because it would be bizarre, indeed, to have two
>>different speeds with exactly the same name/rating designation.
>>
>>Anyone remember that the reason they gave for the speed 'rating' was to
>>make it *easier* to compare processors? But now we're right back to
>>"3000" not being "3000," depending on what processor you're looking at,
>>in just their own lineup. Even ignoring minor issues like a 333 FSB vs
>>400 FSB version of the 'same' rating, an XP 3000+ does not perform like
>>a socket A Sempron 3000+, which does not perform like a socket 754
>>Sempron 3000+, which does not perform like an Athlon 64 3000+.
>
>
> On the 939 socket.
>
>
>
>>And then Intel went and fouled the whole thing up by dropping 'MHz' from
>>the name entirely.
>
>
> Yeah, I totally give up on the Intel naming. Unless you have benchmarks
> there's no way to determine processor speed or features. I think its
> silly at this point to even market new cpu unless there are significant
> changes in the architecture. Like AMD I think the next generation cpus
> should have all current features and speeds but quieter, cooler, less
> voltage and case fans can provide enough cooling to the cpu.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <XrEXd.10910$no3.10759@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, jaster
says...

> The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000.

No it isn't. The Sempron only has 256k L2 cache.

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> In article <XrEXd.10910$no3.10759@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, jaster
> says...
>
>
>>The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000.
>
>
> No it isn't.

You're right there.

> The Sempron only has 256k L2 cache.

And you're right there too for all the Socket A Semprons, except for the
socket A Sempron 3000+ that has 512K L2 cache.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <1130u006iveut2e@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
> Conor wrote:
>
> > In article <XrEXd.10910$no3.10759@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, jaster
> > says...
> >
> >
> >>The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000.
> >
> >
> > No it isn't.
>
> You're right there.
>
> > The Sempron only has 256k L2 cache.
>
> And you're right there too for all the Socket A Semprons, except for the
> socket A Sempron 3000+ that has 512K L2 cache.
>
I thought only the Socket 754 versions had 512k?


--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> In article <1130u006iveut2e@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
>
>>Conor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <XrEXd.10910$no3.10759@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, jaster
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it isn't.
>>
>>You're right there.
>>
>>
>>>The Sempron only has 256k L2 cache.
>>
>>And you're right there too for all the Socket A Semprons, except for the
>>socket A Sempron 3000+ that has 512K L2 cache.
>>
>
> I thought only the Socket 754 versions had 512k?

Understandable since the Sempron 3000+ is the only socket A version that
has 512K L2 (at least as of the last datasheet I downloaded).

It's the same clock speed as the 256K cache Sempron 2800+, 2 GHz, and gets
the extra '200' from the 512K cache.

A 7% bump sounds a tad low to me but that's what they came up with.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Thanks to all involved for the discussion.






"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11332p1h9gti04b@corp.supernews.com...
> Conor wrote:
>
> > In article <1130u006iveut2e@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
> >
> >>Conor wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <XrEXd.10910$no3.10759@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, jaster
> >>>says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No it isn't.
> >>
> >>You're right there.
> >>
> >>
> >>>The Sempron only has 256k L2 cache.
> >>
> >>And you're right there too for all the Socket A Semprons, except for the
> >>socket A Sempron 3000+ that has 512K L2 cache.
> >>
> >
> > I thought only the Socket 754 versions had 512k?
>
> Understandable since the Sempron 3000+ is the only socket A version that
> has 512K L2 (at least as of the last datasheet I downloaded).
>
> It's the same clock speed as the 256K cache Sempron 2800+, 2 GHz, and gets
> the extra '200' from the 512K cache.
>
> A 7% bump sounds a tad low to me but that's what they came up with.
>
>
>

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:38:23 -0600, David Maynard wrote:

> Conor wrote:
>
>> In article <XrEXd.10910$no3.10759@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, jaster
>> says...
>>
>>
>>>The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000.
>>
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> You're right there.
>
>> The Sempron only has 256k L2 cache.
>
> And you're right there too for all the Socket A Semprons, except for the
> socket A Sempron 3000+ that has 512K L2 cache.

Question:
Which is the better Fry's combo deal then?

Sempron 3100 for $159

or

XP 64 3000 for $199

motherboard unknown probably the same ECS with the same features boxed
cpus.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jaster wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:38:23 -0600, David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>Conor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <XrEXd.10910$no3.10759@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, jaster
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Sempron 3000 is the XP 3000.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it isn't.
>>
>>You're right there.
>>
>>
>>>The Sempron only has 256k L2 cache.
>>
>>And you're right there too for all the Socket A Semprons, except for the
>>socket A Sempron 3000+ that has 512K L2 cache.
>
>
> Question:
> Which is the better Fry's combo deal then?
>
> Sempron 3100 for $159
>
> or
>
> XP 64 3000 for $199
>
> motherboard unknown probably the same ECS with the same features boxed
> cpus.
>
>

Well, that depends entirely on how you define "better deal."

I'd go for the XP 64 because it's 64 bit whereas the Sempron isn't and 40
bucks isn't all that much compared to the total cost of a system. And the
Athlon 64 3000+ is faster than the Sempron 3100+ by quite a bit, depending
on what apps you're running.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

i bought an amd barton core 2800 its supposed to be faster than the
semprons. It actually clocks at 2.07ghz.