Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice) versus Sempron 3400+

Hey there,

I'm thinking about the Athlon 3000+ Venice socket 939 but I've just noticed that the Sempron 3400+ is the same price so I don't know which to get.

The excellent benchmark tests here suggets that they're pretty much the same or the Sempron even beats the Athlon 64 (most noticeable here http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page37.html which possibly contradicts the excellent CPU buyer guide's advice here for video/audio editing CPUs1???? ) !

So I'm confused - realistically what's better - the extra CPU speed or the cache i.e. the Sempron or the Athlon 64??

I'll be using the computer mainly for sound processing, softsynths, cubase, music production which is very CPU intensive I understand, and also some video editing which also is. Plus I'll be playing games.

And If it's relevenat at all I'll be using it with 2x512 DDR400 RAM and on a lo/midrange mobo - whatever I decide to get. And I'm not fussed about upgrading as I always just buy a new board when I rebuild.

So which is better please?

(I have seen the sempron 3300 vs athlon 3000 thread but I see that the sempron outdoes it significantly sometimes so am assuming it's quite different hence the new thread)
3 answers Last reply
More about athlon 3000 venice versus sempron 3400
  1. the venice is S939 where the sempron is S754
  2. Quote:
    Hey there,

    I'm thinking about the Athlon 3000+ Venice socket 939 but I've just noticed that the Sempron 3400+ is the same price so I don't know which to get.

    The excellent benchmark tests here suggets that they're pretty much the same or the Sempron even beats the Athlon 64 (most noticeable here http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page37.html which possibly contradicts the excellent CPU buyer guide's advice here for video/audio editing CPUs1???? ) !

    So I'm confused - realistically what's better - the extra CPU speed or the cache i.e. the Sempron or the Athlon 64??

    I'll be using the computer mainly for sound processing, softsynths, cubase, music production which is very CPU intensive I understand, and also some video editing which also is. Plus I'll be playing games.

    And If it's relevenat at all I'll be using it with 2x512 DDR400 RAM and on a lo/midrange mobo - whatever I decide to get. And I'm not fussed about upgrading as I always just buy a new board when I rebuild.

    So which is better please?

    (I have seen the sempron 3300 vs athlon 3000 thread but I see that the sempron outdoes it significantly sometimes so am assuming it's quite different hence the new thread)


    Venice will CLOWN the Sempron in performance in realworld...especially once overclocked...

    Ive got 2 3000+ Venice's...

    Ones at 2.70Ghz on stock factory HSF @ 1.600VCore, the other is @ 2.75Ghz @ 1.550VCore w/ factory HSF aswell.

    Venice > Sempron
  3. It depends on what you're doing.

    Basic office/web apps - Get the sempron because the xtra cache of the A64 doesn't help performance enough.

    Gaming - Get the A64 because the cache is used.

    Video editing (not encoding) - probably tossup - the A64 may perform faster but not much, and that may be overcome by the price difference.

    Video encoding - Get an Intel or higher end multi-CPU opteron. (or other dual-core).

    Mike.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Sempron