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)

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/proc [...] eron_m.htm

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

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.

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 You should not be using outdated benchmarks to measure a newer CPU based on a different architecture and built using a different process.

Any newer from your side?

Yes...I shouldn't have said "outperform." But the claim that the Sempron is twice as fast as Yonah is ridiculous.

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.

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.

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.

Of course, that's why I started with:

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.

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.

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, [...] 534,00.htm

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

The new line of value

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.

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.

Of course you still need a portable outlet for working with a mobile AMD

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.