Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

celeron 420 (LGA) vs Sempron 3000+ (AM2)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 5, 2007 3:29:43 AM

im hoping you could help me out here, coz im gonna buy one of them this comming week.

which do you think is cooler (temperature), better in graphics, and more durable...

if there's already a review, can you paste the link?

thanks.
July 5, 2007 3:47:31 AM

Quote:
im hoping you could help me out here, coz im gonna buy one of them this comming week.

which do you think is cooler (temperature), better in graphics, and more durable...

if there's already a review, can you paste the link?

thanks.

depends on if you're overclocking... but why stay single core when dual core costs only a little more?
July 5, 2007 3:50:26 AM

i'm on a tight budget.

but from what i see on the internet, both are 35watts, runs cool, 65nm. so, which do you think is worth investing on?
Related resources
July 5, 2007 4:16:55 AM

hi there,

the sempron 3000+ am2 is not necessarily 35watts. It depends on which version you buy. It is most likely the 60watt version.

I would think that the x2 BE2150 (45watt) is better because of the multicore.

If you are going sempron vs that cele core solo processor, I would go for the celeron as it has the modern technology core.

Those 35watt semprons are more expensive and hard to find. the 65 watt variety are more common but with the 45watt x2BE processors out there, the semprons are not even worth consideration.

just my two cents
July 5, 2007 5:12:19 AM

You should buy Celeron 420 as it's Conroe based like C2D. You can overclock the processor to beyond 3 ghz where as you can only overclock the Sempron processor to only 2.5ghz~. Also Celeron 420 beats the sempron processor clock for clock. You can also use very very cheap ram for the Celeron 420 (which means 667mhz sticks which cost only 30$~ CND for 1GB.) Also buying the Celeron 420 will also save electricity bill because its 35W TPD. You can purchase/salvage a cheap 300W powersupply for the celeron machine and it'll be more than enough.
July 5, 2007 12:28:39 PM

thanks for the replies.
July 5, 2007 2:05:36 PM

The Celeron is a better performer compared to the Sempron but it's a $50 CPU while for $60 you can get a X2 3600+ which is a dual core and soundly beats both of them. I know what being on a tight budget means; built all of my systems like that but $10 more is by no means a problem when you et a lot of extra performance :wink:
July 6, 2007 12:23:19 PM

Quote:
The Celeron is a better performer compared to the Sempron but it's a $50 CPU while for $60 you can get a X2 3600+ which is a dual core and soundly beats both of them. I know what being on a tight budget means; built all of my systems like that but $10 more is by no means a problem when you et a lot of extra performance :wink:


The newer Celeron 4xx could perform much better to the Sempron, because of the Core microarchitecture.

It's even better if you can try avoiding the Prescott cores - they are not really that good.

Unfortunately, the prices of Celeron 4xx are too close to the lowest-end X2 and even worse, shops wouldn't even bother to stock up on those. :( 
July 6, 2007 12:53:11 PM

Well, a 1.6GHz celeron 420 will not be substantially faster than a 1.8GHz Sempron 3000+; In most of the testing scenarios, the difference here is something that only graphs and numbers can show, and even if the Celeron 4xx series and upper Semprons fell below the $30 mark, I's still way more convenient to squeeze another $30 for a X2 3600+; maybe spare something from the case, PSU, HDD or even RAM but I'd never save that money from the CPU.
!