athlon 64 VS Semperon

the big difference i see between these two at this time is the where the bottleneck is on two!. the athlon 64 's bottleneck is at the DMA and the semperon is at the cpu. do benchmarks even take into consideration where the multiplex/Demultiplex operations occur?. the atholon 64's no longer has to do the operation sice this is done at the DMA!. so the cpu benchmarks would be way off between the to types of processors !. the load was taken off the processor on the 64's . so which processor is actually faster?.
40 answers Last reply
More about athlon semperon
  1. You do realize a Sempron is just a Socket 754 Athlon 64 with half or less the cache right?

    The first ones were just Athlon XPs.
  2. Quote:
    You do realize a Sempron is just a Socket 754 Athlon 64 with half or less the cache right?

    The first ones were just Athlon XPs.
    Exactly!
  3. The Sempron's bottlneck is at 'the CPU' - that's very very vague...

    The main difference is the Cache. 256 really doesn't cut it any more - it's like 512mb RAM; useable but not very powerful.

    Why you'd want to invest in a Sempron at the dawn of the next generation of CPUs is beyond me though.
  4. Quote:
    so which processor is actually faster?.

    the one with better architecture, higher freqfency, more instruction sets, more cache and better production process. 8)
  5. Quote:
    so which processor is actually faster?.

    the one with better architecture, higher freqfency, more instruction sets, more cache and better production process. 8)

    The architecture is the same, the frequency can be the same, the instruction sets are almost all the same (Semprons don't have SSE3 yet), cache doesn't matter in most applications, and the production process is exactly the same. Both chips come from the same factory. Semprons are just Athlon 64s that don't make the cut.

    And Semprons are more than powerful enough to run a basic box from just office applications and the internet or a something like a file server. If I were to build my girlfriend a new computer it'd be a Sempron because she doesn't need anything better than that.
  6. Quote:
    so which processor is actually faster?.

    the one with better architecture, higher freqfency, more instruction sets, more cache and better production process. 8)

    The architecture is the same, the frequency can be the same, the instruction sets are almost all the same (Semprons don't have SSE3 yet), cache doesn't matter in most applications, and the production process is exactly the same. Both chips come from the same factory. Semprons are just Athlon 64s that don't make the cut.

    And Semprons are more than powerful enough to run a basic box from just office applications and the internet or a something like a file server. If I were to build my girlfriend a new computer it'd be a Sempron because she doesn't need anything better than that.

    Amen. Semprons are good little chips for the money. I've actually build a few gaming systems with them for friends on a budget. Nothing serious, but it does the trick for them without a problem.

    The shop I work at uses Semprons for our general builds (i.e. home/office computers used primarily for internet & MS Office), and they absolutely rock at what they are designed to do (the computers I mean).

    Plus, you can run 4GB of RAM on them and windows XP Pro 64-bit if you wanted to. Not bad for a $75 CPU.
  7. sorry for the vaguness.

    both cpu types have to perform a multiplex/demultiplex operation for the data bus!. the 64-by-32 processor family has to do this on the cpu itself. the 64-by-64 family of processors does this operation at the dma.

    for example before the introduction of the pci and eisa slots (32 bit) back during the 486 years early models of the 486 had only 16 bit isa slots with a slb video slot for 32 bit video card.

    not i do know the 64's have more l1 and l2 cashe but that goes to the hit or miss on the look ahead registers.

    given that you have the exact drives and video cards similar motherboard features and both processors from their respective families run at the same clock speed which machine would actually run faster? the 64 that uses the dma to multiplex or the semperon that does it on the cpu?
  8. Actually the newest semprons do have SSE3. And the K8 is not very picky about cache, so, although the full athlons do perform better, it is not nearly as much as people here seem to believe. The issue I see, is that the semprons that are above the very bottom, are priced too similiar to the venice cores, and thus are not really worth buying. Get a 64bit sempron 2800, sure, but why bother with the 3400?
  9. Quote:
    The architecture is the same, the frequency can be the same, the instruction sets are almost all the same (Semprons don't have SSE3 yet), cache doesn't matter in most applications, and the production process is exactly the same. Both chips come from the same factory. Semprons are just Athlon 64s that don't make the cut.

    And Semprons are more than powerful enough to run a basic box from just office applications and the internet or a something like a file server. If I were to build my girlfriend a new computer it'd be a Sempron because she doesn't need anything better than that.

    No,
    1. The architecture can be or can not be the same. The first Semprons s462(aka AthlonXP-Throton/Barton) have different architecture.
    Anyway there are s754 Semprons based on K8 without the x86-64 extensions(I think it depends on the rev, E3 & E6 do support x86-64). Also some of the low-numbered models does not support CNQ.
    2. There are Semprons and Athlon64s with and without SSE3, depends on the core.
    3. Cache does matter a lot in most applications, but the performance boost due to more cache is not growing linearly as more cache is added.
    For multimedia(movies, mp3) and other streaming software the cache does not matter. For complex applications such as programming languages, MS Office-like apps, Graphics design apps, Movie mounting&mixing apps, the cache does matter a lot.
    4. Production process is not the same. There are both Athlon64s & Semprons based on both 130nm & 90nm and SOI 1st & 2nd generation.
    5. They are not produced from the same factory, there are more than one AMD fab producing chips. Also they are produced on different quality and different size wafers.
    6. Every girl needs better than new PC.
  10. um where is this thread going?

    everyone tosses in some odd comments about nothing (which makes me no better lol)

    semprons do have SSE3 (not all of them)

    why would anyone compare the budget line CPU to the best CPU ???????????????

    EVERYONE says - (this isnt saying everyone is right) the CPU dont matter no mo
    get a really good GPU and you will be happy, blah blah blah
    so wth :?:

    why buy a sempron with a whole new line comming out?
    sounds simple enough to me
    1. allows you to re-use yur ram from yur older pentium or athlon XP based system
    2. saves you money - pretty dern decent upgrade from an older pentium or athlon
    3. coupled with a PCI mobo the video card can make the move to the next gen of mobos
    4. all in all a great get me by upgrade for those that dont want to shell out more cash for something outdated - or soon to be outdated

    fin 8)
  11. Sempron = socket 754, 1/2 cache , single memory channel (Max 2GB)
    Athlon 64 =socket 939, all cache, dual channel.

    There are Athlon 64 socket 754 that are old processor with all the cache but old tech.

    And there are Turions (socket754) that was Athlons with low clock and low power use.
  12. Are you just trying to sound smart or something?

    At the same exact clock speed in pretty much everything both processors will run nearly equal. Thats assuming you're using a Socket 754 Athlon64. Socket 939 ones are faster because they use a dual channel 128bit memory controller vs. Socket 754s single channel 64-bit memory controller.

    But assuming Socket 754 Sempron vs. Socket 754 Athlon64 they're nearly equal in everything but tasks where L1 and L2 cache come into play. In games it doesn't make much of a difference.

    Its the same f*cking processor. I can't think of any simplier way to say it.

    Here it is in binary for you.

    01001001 01010100 01010011 00100000 01010100 01001000 01000101 00100000 01010011 01000001 01001101 01000101 00100000 01000110 01010101 01000011 01001011 01001001 01001110 01000111 00100000 01010000 01010010 01001111 01000011 01000101 01010011 01010011 01001111 01010010 00100001 00100001 00100001
  13. Nice post. Too funny. Can't agree with you on the dual channel thing making much of a difference, but you already knew that. Lets make sure no one is scared of a AM2 Sempron, they look to be a great bargain if they are priced right (and they should be)
  14. And gOJDO I'm comparing apples to apples. Not apples to oranges. I said in my first post that the first Semprons were just Athlon XPs.

    Sorry. Didn't think Semprons had SSE3 yet because I just went and quickly glanced at a Sempron cause I couldn't remember. I happened to look at a Sempron instead of a Sempron64 (I don't even bother with non-64 bit capable CPUs anymore normally). And in that case it makes them even more similar. Hell maybe faster compared to Socket 754 Athlon64s in tasks that use SSE3 since they didn't have it.

    And for the 754 Semprons without x64 extensions they're probably just disabled. Even if they're left off its still a K8 and doesn't effect the speed of the processor in the 32-bit arena. And 130nm vs. 90nm doesn't affect processor performance except in power usage and heat dissapation. Yes they do come from the same factory. They don't have one whole factory devoted to Semprons or even a production line. It doesn't matter how many factories they have. Semprons can come from all of them or just one since its the same core with half the L2 cache.
  15. Quote:
    Can't agree with you on the dual channel thing making much of a difference,


    Its not like 50% better performance in the real world but it is a good amount. About 10-15%.

    You're moving 4x the data in the same amount of time. Instead of moving 64bits of data one way each clock cycle, you're moving 128bits of data both ways each clock cycle. Also the memory bus got a bump in speed from 1.6GHz to 2000MHz in Socket 939.
  16. Am i Tring to be smart no!. what i am doing is discussing with yo and others that care too!.
    all i am doing is pointing out that there really is no perfomance difference between the two families of processors till the new slots are introduced for the 64 by 64 processors i.e 64 bit pci slots and 64 bit ribbons!. just learning here is all. forums are for discussion and understandin not just for technical support!.

    cpu benchmarks for the 64 x 64 will be alot better than the 64 x 32 because the latter has to have a wait state for multipex operation.
  17. SSE 3 doesn't really matter much. I remember reading a review way back when two Athlon 64 were tested against each other for video encoding and music encoding. One had SSE 3, the other was an older core with only SSE 2. There were a hardly any differences between the scores. 2% maybe, that can be considered within the margin of error.

    There are S939 Sempron 64 available out there in the market, but AMD only sell them to system builders. I'm not sure if they will release it for retail sale though because they can cannabilize the S754 Sempron sales as well as the lower end S939 Athlon 64 sales I suppose.
  18. No, not quite right. People confuse AMD and Intel gains with dual channel. Because the intel setup has the northbridge between it and the ram, and they use their outdated FSB, they are bandwidth starved. Thus, dual channel helps out quite a bit. The K8 is rarely is bottlenecked by bandwidth, so dual channel memory performance gains are between 0-5%, in almost all cases. The way the dual channel system is set up, it only has a 2X increase, not 4X, and non of that matters if you are not using it. Similiar to the way that increasing the hypertransport doesn't really help because it is not a bottlenecked in the first place.
  19. what we have here is three technologies on one chip (dual Core processors) CISC ,RISC and paralle processing the latter being two risc processors in paralle !. since software has not been written for this technolgy there is really little to no performance boost in having this product other than boasting rights !. i did read some where that it could be possible to run the os on one core and apps on the other I personally do not know!. Reduced instuction set processors depend on software for their instrution sets thus why dual core would be a waste of money at this time!. in my humble opinion.
  20. "I personally do not know" - well there you go. There are plenty of apps that take advantage of dual cores now. Not many 9 months ago, but plenty now.
  21. Quote:
    I don't even bother with non-64 bit capable CPUs anymore normally. Hell maybe faster compared to Socket 754 Athlon64s in tasks that use SSE3 since they didn't have it.

    No, there is almost no 64bit software(apropriate OSes, drivers, apps) yet. x86-64 are useless today, we use no adventages.
    Quote:
    And for the 754 Semprons without x64 extensions they're probably just disabled.

    same as the HTT links, and the 128kb disabled of total 256kB L2 on some of the models.
    Quote:
    And 130nm vs. 90nm doesn't affect processor performance except in power usage and heat dissapation.

    the 90nm are much more overclockable&stable. Anyway there is only one model of 130nm K8 Sempron, the 3100+(clawhammer with 256kB L2)
    Quote:
    Yes they do come from the same factory. They don't have one whole factory devoted to Semprons or even a production line. It doesn't matter how many factories they have.

    No, apropriate equipment is needed for every production process. They are not produced in every fab, someone can explain whichone from what fab and etc.
  22. do they really? the apps would have to be killer in size on the scale of 2x for the instruction sets for 2 risck cores not to mention the code for complex instrution sets then to tie them in paralle to boot!. the which operating system you running?. does the programs you mention run a dos shell inorder to run the program?.
  23. ? ok, you seem to be off in left field somewhere, Let us know when you find us....
  24. Missed this before. Hyper transport is the interconnect between the CPU and north and south bridge chips. It has NOTHING to do with memory performance on the K8 setup unless you are using something like a turbo cache style video card, or Raid controller, etc... The 2000mhz speed of 939 boards is has to do with both the cpu and the chipset, there are 754 boards that run at 2000mhz as well, lots of em.
  25. you can trick the operating system into believing there are tw processors on board so you have one doing one thing and the othe doing someting else.
    but the idea behind dual core s is to run them both in tandem like you do with the new video where you run two cards in tandem to achive one out put (SLi) or two hard drive as in a raid array two drives working for one output.

    so in short there is no software out there to do this. unless you believe this is to relpace muti processor computers?.
  26. Ok, now I see where you are coming from. You are right in what you are saying, but it is way off from what AMD/Intel are doing. Dual cores are not each doing 50% of the work, no doubt there. But, a single program can be locked to one core (except the OS), or parts of one program can be split to both cores (when this happens it's more likely to be 80%/20% than 50/50%, 50/50 is an ideal that would never happen in programming. See the thread about reverse hyperthreading for what you are thinking.). Yes, dual core systems are meant to replace/supplement dual processor systems.
  27. you can trick the operating system into believing there are tw processors on board so you have one doing one thing and the othe doing someting else.
    but the idea behind dual core s is to run them both in tandem like you do with the new video where you run two cards in tandem to achive one out put (SLi) or two hard drive as in a raid array two drives working for one output.

    so in short there is no software out there to do this. unless you believe this is to relpace muti processor computers?.
  28. you can trick the operating system into believing there are tw processors on board so you have one doing one thing and the othe doing someting else.
    but the idea behind dual core s is to run them both in tandem like you do with the new video where you run two cards in tandem to achive one out put (SLi) or two hard drive as in a raid array two drives working for one output.

    so in short there is no software out there to do this. unless you believe this is to relpace muti processor computers?.
  29. sorry for the repeat post my fault!. and thanks for the discussion on the direction cpu's are goin gotta go to my sons trak meet till next folks !.
  30. There are some very viable and relatively mature 64-bit OSes, just not one made by Microsoft. I happen to be typing this from one.
  31. Quote:
    There are some very viable and relatively mature 64-bit OSes, just not one made by Microsoft. I happen to be typing this from one.

    Yeap, and mainstream uses Windows.
    Almost no drivers, no apps, no games 64bit compiled, jut like the case for multithreading.
  32. For all that are interested, here's a link showing the difference in performance that more or less L2 cache makes on the k8 (not a whole lot).

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-2600_5.html
  33. L2 cache doesn't make that big of a difference. The biggest thing is definitely clock frequency and after that probably core architecture. For multimedia and games, multimedia executions (SSE1,2,&3, 3DNOW) are a good thing to have. In terms of Sempron vs Athlon on socket 754, the Sempron is pretty good, and very cheap. The Sempron 64 in particular (Palermo E6) is VERY easy to overclock with a good mother board.

    Semprons don't match Athlons in terms of performance, but with the right price and some overclocking, they can be better than Athlons.
  34. L2 cache doesn't make that big of a difference. The biggest thing is definitely clock frequency and after that probably core architecture. For multimedia and games, multimedia executions (SSE1,2,&3, 3DNOW) are a good thing to have. In terms of Sempron vs Athlon on socket 754, the Sempron is pretty good, and very cheap. The Sempron 64 in particular (Palermo E6) is VERY easy to overclock with a good mother board.

    Semprons don't match Athlons in terms of performance, but with the right price and some overclocking, they can be better than Athlons.
  35. Quote:
    so which processor is actually faster?.

    the one with better architecture, higher freqfency, more instruction sets, more cache and better production process. 8)

    The architecture is the same, the frequency can be the same, the instruction sets are almost all the same (Semprons don't have SSE3 yet), cache doesn't matter in most applications, and the production process is exactly the same. Both chips come from the same factory. Semprons are just Athlon 64s that don't make the cut.

    And Semprons are more than powerful enough to run a basic box from just office applications and the internet or a something like a file server. If I were to build my girlfriend a new computer it'd be a Sempron because she doesn't need anything better than that.

    Ohh!!! Snap. I'm telling your Girl you said that!!
  36. I agree! He should get the CPU with the least cake memory. There are enough fat gamers out there already! :lol:
  37. Quote:
    so
    ...The architecture is the same, the frequency can be the same, the instruction sets are almost all the same (Semprons don't have SSE3 yet), cache doesn't ...


    Which are we talking about? old socket A Semprons, old S754 Semprons, S754 Sempron 64's, or the new 939's that come in some retail machines.

    The Sempron 64 is relatively new and it does have SSE3 and 64 bit support, and doesn't seem to be that bad at all sorts of apps and games.
  38. Oh, and who wouldn't like more Cake with thier processors?
  39. As others have said earlier, the Semperon is a great value CPU (a real Celeron killer and even those early P4s). If AMD is serious about having a Sempron AM2, then that might be my next ticket to upgrade.
  40. The Sempron 64's are better than celerons and Pentium IV's and equal to the Athlon 64's in performance forthe price.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Bottleneck Processors