Intel Celeron M 410 or AMD Sempron 3200+ Please Help

Hello i am looking for a budget laptop and have narrowed it down to two. One having the :

Intel Celeron M 410 (1.46GHz, 533MHZ FSB, 1MB Cache)

and one with:

AMD Sempron M 3200+ (1.8GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 512KB Cache)


I cant seem to find a comparision between these two monitors. I would like to see a benchmark but can find one. It looks like the AMD will win, but most of the features i want is in the Intel laptop. So i am having a hard time deciding. You help will be greatly appreciated. THanks
39 answers Last reply
More about intel celeron sempron 3200 help
  1. Quote:
    Hello i am looking for a budget laptop and have narrowed it down to two. One having the :

    Intel Celeron M 410 (1.46GHz, 533MHZ FSB, 1MB Cache)

    and one with:

    AMD Sempron M 3200+ (1.8GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 512KB Cache)


    I cant seem to find a comparision between these two monitors. I would like to see a benchmark but can find one. It looks like the AMD will win, but most of the features i want is in the Intel laptop. So i am having a hard time deciding. You help will be greatly appreciated. THanks


    Pretty simple choice:

    Battery life -> Celeron
    Performance-> Sempron

    (Roughly, the Sempron should perform twice better than the Celeron and the Celeron provide you with 1.5X the battery life of the Sempron. However... If I'm not wrong, 1.8G and above they have Cool'n'Quiet while the Celeron has no SpeedStep so battery usage can be even nearer.
    I't get the Sempron, definitely)
  2. Quote:
    Pretty simple choice:

    Battery life -> Celeron
    Performance-> Sempron

    (Roughly, the Sempron should perform twice better than the Celeron and the Celeron provide you with 1.5X the battery life of the Sempron. However... If I'm not wrong, 1.8G and above they have Cool'n'Quiet while the Celeron has no SpeedStep so battery usage can be even nearer.
    I't get the Sempron, definitely)


    The Celeron M 400 series is based on the Yonah core and uses 65nm technology. It should outperform the Sempron.

    http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/celeron_m.htm
  3. The question is how much better the sempron is, no way the inverse.

    Here are 2 Prime values for Sempron 3100+(not 3200+) and CeleronM 1.6G (not 1.46) . Lower is better:

    Sempron 3100+ -> 0.1972
    Celeron M 1.6G -> 0.3595

    The diference is greater for the CPUs in question so as I said it's ROUGHLY 2x. A celeron is just an office CPU while a sempron can be a healthy performer; I hate when they call it AMD's celeron.

    The whole page is here:
    http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
  4. Quote:
    Intel Celeron M 410 (1.46GHz, 533MHZ FSB, 1MB Cache)

    and one with:

    AMD Sempron M 3200+ (1.8GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 512KB Cache)

    That part is wrong. The AMD Sempron 3200+ Mobile has only 128kB of L2 cache. They will be toe in overall performance, but the Celeron M is on 65nm process and consumes less power. It is the better choice, especialy if it is built in Centrino platform.
  5. Quote:
    The whole page is here:
    http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm

    Dude, those benchmarks are from last year. The 400 series was not benchmarked because it hadn't been released. You should not be using outdated benchmarks to measure a newer CPU based on a different architecture and built using a different process.
  6. Any newer from your side?
  7. Quote:
    They will be toe in overall performance, but the Celeron M is on 65nm process and consumes less power. It is the better choice, especialy if it is built in Centrino platform.

    Yes...I shouldn't have said "outperform." But the claim that the Sempron is twice as fast as Yonah is ridiculous.
  8. No, but I don't have to. I was just pointing out that you're using incorrect benchmarks to back up your claim that the mobile Sempron is twice as fast as a Yonah Celeron M. That makes your claim invalid unless you provide benchmarks to support it.
  9. Quote:
    They will be toe in overall performance, but the Celeron M is on 65nm process and consumes less power. It is the better choice, especialy if it is built in Centrino platform.

    Yes...I shouldn't have said "outperform." But the claim that the Sempron is twice as fast as Yonah is ridiculous.
    Not exactly but I found this:
    http://www.gen-x-pc.com/review_dothan_pro.htm

    It compares a 1.8G Athlon with a 1.7G PentiumM and the last is slightly better.

    As a rule of thumb, for the same core and clock, a celeron is 60-70% of a Pentium while Semprons are as much as 90-95% of an Athlon. So multiplying all the results by the best 0.7 and then by (1.46/1.7) and the Athlon with the worst 0.9 gives you these (ALWAYS RAUGH) data
    Halo : Combat Evolved - 1024 x 768
    Sempron 3200+ 1.8G 20.8
    Celeron M400 1.46G 14.5

    Unreal Tournament 2004 - 1024 x 768 - Rankin
    Sempron 3200+ 1.8G 76.41
    Celeron M400 1.46G 59.64

    and so on..
    The sempron should be a healthy 20-30% above.
  10. Quote:
    Not exactly but I found this:
    http://www.gen-x-pc.com/review_dothan_pro.htm

    Read the URL. Read the first page. It's a review of Dothan, not Yonah. The CPU the OP is considering is based on Yonah, not Dothan. So these benchmarks are also irrelevant. The Yonah core adds SSE3 and is far better for gaming than Dothan. The OP didn't mention if he wanted to use his laptop for advanced gaming but I doubt it, since he's looking for a "budget" laptop.
  11. Of course, that's why I started with:

    Quote:
    Battery life -> Celeron
    Performance-> Sempron
  12. I own 2 notebooks, HP nx6125 and nx8220. The one is with AMD Turion64 (Lancaster) ML-34 1.8GHz 1MB L2 HTT-1600, the other with Intel Pentium M (Dothan) 760 2GHz 2MB L2 FSB-533.
    The Pentium M is faster clock for clock than the Turion64.
    I also have tested Mobile Sempron and Celeron M notebooks. The Sempron is good only for multimedia. For other purposes like programming, graphics, video editing and rendering, gaming and office-like apps the Celeron M dominates.
    The purposes of mobile computers are to enable us to transport our working tool easily and to enable us to use it without power for a certain period. Taking this in our primary account, the platform with CeleronM offers more than the platform with Sempron.
  13. Quote:
    Of course, that's why I started with:

    Battery life -> Celeron
    Performance-> Sempron


    Most of the time, your laptop is not all out performing. The Celeron is good, that it gives you much more battery life. The sympron have been known to get really hot and the battery peeter out at 2hrs tops. celeron m can last up to 5hrs. The best centrino known for battery life is the Sony Vaio at 11hrs. 1gig chip at 5watt, slow great for just surfing the web and reading email. Off couse, Sony cost way more. Not a budget laptop if you were curious.
  14. Since you insist on using benchmarks that don't apply to the CPU in question, I'll go ahead and provide benchmarks that compare the Core Duo (Yonah) to the Athlon 64 X2 (K8 ). While I don't like to do this, at least it's a better relative comparison than the one you're making. The benchmarks are here.

    Notice that his is a comparison between the low power desktop Athlon 64 X2 and the notebook Core Duo used in a desktop.

    This article compares the Core Duo vs. the Turion 64 X2:

    http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49273534,00.htm

    Again, Yonah is faster than the K8, not 20-30% slower.


  15. The new line of value :)
  16. This article only states 100% synthetic benchmarks which are hardly worth anything. However, I think ew should better find some real data instead of interpolating.
  17. Quote:


    The new line of value :)


    :lol: :lol: :lol:
    Joking apart, only a celeron is worse than a celeron. Don't know much the mobiles but the desktops are terrible, even the D models.
  18. Quote:
    I own 2 notebooks, HP nx6125 and nx8220. The one is with AMD Turion64 (Lancaster) ML-34 1.8GHz 1MB L2 HTT-1600, the other with Intel Pentium M (Dothan) 760 2GHz 2MB L2 FSB-533.
    The Pentium M is faster clock for clock than the Turion64.
    I also have tested Mobile Sempron and Celeron M notebooks. The Sempron is good only for multimedia. For other purposes like programming, graphics, video editing and rendering, gaming and office-like apps the Celeron M dominates.
    The purposes of mobile computers are to enable us to transport our working tool easily and to enable us to use it without power for a certain period. Taking this in our primary account, the platform with CeleronM offers more than the platform with Sempron.

    Of course you still need a portable outlet for working with a mobile AMD :D
  19. Quote:
    This article only states 100% synthetic benchmarks which are hardly worth anything. However, I think ew should better find some real data instead of interpolating.

    You're the one that extrapolated. My response, as clearly stated, was a reply to your extrapolation. :)

    AMD fans should realize that AMD is no longer the king of the hill, especially in the laptop (where it was never better) and desktop markets. Get over it.
  20. Quote:
    Joking apart, only a celeron is worse than a celeron. Don't know much the mobiles but the desktops are terrible, even the D models.

    I agree, Celeron D is worse than the Sempron 64 just like the Athlon 64 is better than the Pentium 4. But we're talking about Celeron M, not D. You shouldn't extrapolate. ;) Intel should have scrapped the whole Celeron name because of its bad reputation, which is constantly amplified by people like you who enjoy spreading anti-Intel FUD. But I'll give you credit for admitting to your lack of knowledge.
  21. BTW, I'm willing to benchmark my own mobile Sempron budget laptop if you or someone else will benchmark a Celeron M 400 series or Core Solo laptop. Mine uses a Sempron 3000+ at 1.8 GHz. Yes, believe it or not, I own a laptop that uses an AMD CPU. If my laptop outperfoms the Celeron M 400 series or Core Solo, I'll take back everything I've said.
  22. I have only a Semperon M 3300+ so I can only comment about its performance, not in comparison to a Celeron M. I can get about 3 hours per charge from it however during operation it gets hot. It includes power now, so that when not in use the CPU goes to 800 MHz (2.0 GHz max) to save battery. The performance is good, comparable to my desktop Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2 GHZ), possibly a little slower due to a slower hard drive in the laptop I cannot be sure. I have a Compaq V5201US that I got at staples for $530 if you are curious.
  23. Is the Compaq laptop on sale this week in Staples? I did a search on it and cant find it on the staples.com Just wondering.
  24. I agree. Intel should toss the Celeron name just like how AMD did to the Duron. That is why i couldnt decide whether to get a Celeron or a Sempron. If the 410 is based on the 65nm process just like the Core 2 Duo's than it should be pretty good (i think). Since Celerons are usually based on the newest chipsets from Intel but only slower FSB, lower cache and slower clock speed. Errrrr.... I come to full circle. Sucks that no site benchmarks low end processors. [what gets me is that i cant find a site that benchmarks the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. I mean i dont have the money to get the E6600.]
  25. Quote:
    BTW, I'm willing to benchmark my own mobile Sempron budget laptop if you or someone else will benchmark a Celeron M 400 series or Core Solo laptop. Mine uses a Sempron 3000+ at 1.8 GHz. Yes, believe it or not, I own a laptop that uses an AMD CPU. If my laptop outperfoms the Celeron M 400 series or Core Solo, I'll take back everything I've said.


    Can arrange it for a Core Duo, all single threaded apps, will it be the same as a Core Solo? I bet the core would win out but a celeron is not the same, they've always been so crippled so we have to find a celeron M410 owner :lol:
    It's already plenty of Conroe VS FX benchmarks but you can hardly manage to find any laptop :x
  26. Quote:
    I agree. Intel should toss the Celeron name just like how AMD did to the Duron. That is why i couldnt decide whether to get a Celeron or a Sempron. If the 410 is based on the 65nm process just like the Core 2 Duo's than it should be pretty good (i think). Since Celerons are usually based on the newest chipsets from Intel but only slower FSB, lower cache and slower clock speed. Errrrr.... I come to full circle. Sucks that no site benchmarks low end processors. [what gets me is that i cant find a site that benchmarks the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. I mean i dont have the money to get the E6600.]


    8O What are you exactly looking for :?: :!:
    is it a laptop or desktop
  27. Quote:


    8O What are you exactly looking for :?: :!:
    is it a laptop or desktop


    Quote:

    Hello i am looking for a budget laptop and have narrowed it down to two. One having the :

    Intel Celeron M 410 (1.46GHz, 533MHZ FSB, 1MB Cache)

    and one with:

    AMD Sempron M 3200+ (1.8GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 512KB Cache)
  28. Off topic, but here are some benchmarks for the E6300.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=1

    Edit: this post was a reply to yiushock. Sorry.
  29. Quote:

    Can arrange it for a Core Duo, all single threaded apps, will it be the same as a Core Solo? I bet the core would win out but a celeron is not the same, they've always been so crippled so we have to find a celeron M410 owner :lol:
    It's already plenty of Conroe VS FX benchmarks but you can hardly manage to find any laptop :x

    Maybe if your friend can disable one core in BIOS. What's the clock speed of your friend's Core Duo? Maybe we can extrapolate from that. ;) But it really wouldn't be fair to compare a Sempron to a Core Duo. I was trying to run PCMark but it wouldn't work. It insisted I needed Media Player 10 even though I had 11. I rolled the installation back to 9, updated to 10, reinstalled and it still wouldn't work. :( If you'll give me links to benchmarking software I'll go ahead and run them. I have Nero 7, 7-Zip, Office, iTunes, WMP 10, 9 or 11. :) I can also download a copy of DVD Shrink, to be used for strictly legitimate benchmarking, of course.

    I have to say that I'm mostly satisfied with my $600 Acer. It's a bit slow but you get what you pay for. I can run all my Office apps, the browsers, etc. It's very important to up the memory to a minimum of 1 GB. They still sell some laptops with 256 MB. Windows XP crawls.
  30. OK Pop Question.... 10 Seconds, choose Intel Celeron M 410 or AMD Sempron M 3200+ and give a reason.
  31. Quote:
    I bet the core would win out but a celeron is not the same, they've always been so crippled so we have to find a celeron M410 owner.
    The Celeron M has never been seriously crippled versus the Pentium M for performance. It’s been crippled in that it doesn’t support Speedstep, which is more of an issue for laptops.
    Celeron desktops have mainly been crippled with one glorious exception, although I don’t know how the mobile Celeron chips compare to mobile Pentium chips.

    If using a Core Duo to stand in for a Celeron 4xx for benchmarking, bare in mind that the former typically has a FSB of 667 versus 533 for the later.
    You should be able to make any application single threaded by setting its affinity so that it only uses one CPU.
  32. Quote:
    As a rule of thumb, for the same core and clock, a celeron is 60-70% of a Pentium while Semprons are as much as 90-95% of an Athlon. So multiplying all the results by the best 0.7 and then by (1.46/1.7) and the Athlon with the worst 0.9 gives you these (ALWAYS RAUGH) data
    Halo : Combat Evolved - 1024 x 768
    Sempron 3200+ 1.8G 20.8
    Celeron M400 1.46G 14.5


    WRONG! What you say is true about CeleronD compare to PentiumD on the desktop side. But when you compare CeleronM and PentiumM, the performances differences is mostly less than 5-10% on equal clock. In this case think of it like a Banias without SpeedStep. It'll consume more, (which is less battery time) but it'll perform quite well.

    I personally own a laptop (nothing fancy, only for when traveling mostly) with a CeleronM 370 (1,5GHz. 400mhz fsb, 1MB L2, 65nm) and the only thing against I have against it is it's gaming performances. That was to be expected tough with an embedded i910 Intel VPU. But when doing any cpu encoding (Compressing my DVD collection and some MP3 for on the road) it usually comes to within 20-40% of my Northwood P4 at 3,0Ghz, 800mhz fsb, which is quite good considering the 100% increase in clock speed, both fsb and internal clock. I did some timing to compare. And everybody knows that encoding isn't exactly Intel mobile line strengh up to Yonah (Core Duo) and especially upcoming MEROM (Core2Duo).

    Plus, whenever I want battery time, I can manually reduce my cpu speed to 600MHZ which give my about 50% (didn't check, but's that what I feel) more time. That's mostly for web browsing in internet coffee shop. This is through a utility on my launch bar, but it does the job in my case.

    But, in this cas, considering at this point that both mobile lines are mostly equal on a clock-for-clock basis, I'd personally go with the Sempron. Even more if Sempron mobile line is 64-bit. I'm not sure about that one tough.

    If you need battery life, you should also consider the manufacturers battery include with the laptop you'll purchased. I think it has more impact than the cpu itself, especially since both cpu probably consume pretty much comparable amount of energy. Get one laptop with at least a 4500mah rating battery (correct me somebody if I'm wrong) and the more the better. My laptop had a really weak (2300mah) battery which could barely give me 60 minutes heavy cpu intensive time or 1h30 minutes web browsing. I changed it (would have saved that by buying the more expensive model, got screwed on that one :x ) and I now easily get over 2 hours intensive usage and 3h30 more web browsing.

    My 2 cents!
  33. Battery Life shouldnt be a problem for me since i will mostly have the laptop plugged in. Also even if i don't, where i work, there will always be an outlet nearby. Plus where i live i dont have any WiFi spots so there is really no point for me to go with just the battery.
  34. Well, in this case go with the Sempron. Like I said before, both Dothan (the core on which the Celeron M you want is based) and A64Mobile perform about the same on a clock-for-clock basis. With the 333 mhz (or so) difference betwen both cpu, Sempron will mostly perform better in over 80% what you'll throw at it. :lol:

    If you would have more money, I'd tell you to wait 2 more months to get a Core2Duo mobile (MEROM core) based laptop :twisted: . It will just "kill" any of these two cpu and anything AMD has to offer on the mobile side at the time, including the dual-core Turion64, only by not has much as the one on the desktop front because of bandwidth limitation (fsb at 667 mhz for MEROM compare to 1066 for the CONROE version :( ). But with a limited budget, Sempron Mobile is probably your best choice 8) .

    My 2 cents! :wink:
  35. The Yonah core is better than any sempr0n. Enough said. Always has been, always will be. The only difference between the Celerons and Core based on Yonah is that the Celerons have half the cache, so your battery life and performance isn't as good as it owuld be. It still outperforms and outlives a sempr0n though.
  36. Quote:
    Maybe if your friend can disable one core in BIOS. What's the clock speed of your friend's Core Duo? Maybe we can extrapolate from that. ;) But it really wouldn't be fair to compare a Sempron to a Core Duo. I was trying to run PCMark but it wouldn't work. It insisted I needed Media Player 10 even though I had 11. I rolled the installation back to 9, updated to 10, reinstalled and it still wouldn't work. :( If you'll give me links to benchmarking software I'll go ahead and run them. I have Nero 7, 7-Zip, Office, iTunes, WMP 10, 9 or 11. :) I can also download a copy of DVD Shrink, to be used for strictly legitimate benchmarking, of course.

    I have to say that I'm mostly satisfied with my $600 Acer. It's a bit slow but you get what you pay for. I can run all my Office apps, the browsers, etc. It's very important to up the memory to a minimum of 1 GB. They still sell some laptops with 256 MB. Windows XP crawls.


    Hey, don't ask so much from it; it's a laptop. I hate them because they deform your posture and never perform better than a half-that-price desktop.
    Windows XP is crap and I think Vista will be even worse; It will send th COMFORTABLE MINIMUM from 1 to 2GB and the only explanation is the stupid fancy graphics, BLAH!
    You could download Blender (the 3D app I use for modelling and rendering). It's free and I can also send you a sample scene. Then we have SuperPI but I guess it's multithreaded so it depends on the possibility to really disable one core. Is 7-Zip multithreaded? I have WMP10.
    I also suggest to let out all the synthetic benchmarks of the various Sandra PCMark etc.
  37. He also asked for the E6300 and 6400 prices that's why.
  38. Quote:
    Well, in this case go with the Sempron. Like I said before, both Dothan (the core on which the Celeron M you want is based) and A64Mobile perform about the same on a clock-for-clock basis.

    Read the thread! It had already been established earlier that the Celeron M 400 series is based on the Yonah core, not Dothan. :roll:

    Celeron Yonah-1024

    According to Wikipedia, this particular Celeron M "is probably the last Intel budget processor to use the "Celeron" name." Thank God!!
  39. Quote:
    Well, in this case go with the Sempron. Like I said before, both Dothan (the core on which the Celeron M you want is based) and A64Mobile perform about the same on a clock-for-clock basis.

    Read the thread! It had already been established earlier that the Celeron M 400 series is based on the Yonah core, not Dothan. :roll:

    Celeron Yonah-1024

    According to Wikipedia, this particular Celeron M "is probably the last Intel budget processor to use the "Celeron" name." Thank God!!

    Well, even so it doesn't change a thing but for encoding. Yonah have slightly reinforced SSE unit which give better encoding result. But again, nothing to get to the level of a MEROM based laptop. So basicly, this Celeron is mostly a Dothan with half-the cache. Still no speedstep also!

    Actually, Yonah have a real advantage over Dothan only with application that use multithreading. But since this Celeron use only one core, there isn't much difference in most case. Go check this test where you can see Dothan surpassing Yonah in a lot of application that don't rely on multithreading: Turion X2 So the same should stay true about Celeron version except for the faster fsb.

    I maintain what I said. The frequency difference is too high for this Celeron to catch-up with the Sempron mentionned above. I'd personally go with a higher frequency cpu but in the choices given above, Sempron deserve the win!

    My 2 cents! :wink:
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Celeron Sempron Intel AMD Product