What is Difference Between AMD Sempron and Athlon?

[mjyumping]

Hello,

What is the difference between amd sempron to athlon in terms of performance? I'm asking about when they have same speed (Ghz). For example: AMD Sempron 2.0 Ghz= AMD Athlon 2.0Ghz. What is faster?

 

[mjyumping]

Please reply, if they are same with the same speed just tell it --thanks--

 

[anonymousdude]

The athlon will be faster as it is a newer and more efficient processor. The original semprons were based on the athlon xp and had less cache meaning clock for clock the athlon would be faster. Either way both processors are outdated. SAme thing applies to new semprons and athlons assuming that they are released based on the same architecture.

 

[Dekasav]

The Athlon will be faster at the same speed, but we can tell you a lot more if you have a few specific CPUs you're looking at.

 

[loneninja]

In almost all cases the Athlon will be faster, if clocked the same, the difference is usually the amount of cache they have. Higher clock speeds are usually reserved for Athlon vs Sempron too, but times have changed since more cores were added.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Athlons will be faster. Think of the Sempron like the Ford Fiesta of CPUs. Its just like a Celeron. Its the lowest binned CPU meaning they couldn't clock it high enough, or the cache didn't work so it was cut or a core was bad so they turned it off.

Its the lowest end AMD CPU you can get.

 

[dkapke]

If you're comparing the same generation of CPUs (Socket A/462, S939, AM2, AM3, etc...) a Sempron is always a lower-cache (onboard memory) Athlon. There were some other differences across the same generation, such as the 939 Semprons lacking 64bit capabilities until very late, like when the AM2 boards were already out. In the latest generations, they were always single core versus the X2s. Bottom line, clock for clock and core for core, in the same generation of CPUs, the Athlons are ALWAYS faster, sometimes up to quite a bit (depending upon the application and its cache dependency).

That said, if you're not doing anything CPU intensive (just a general use computer for web surfing and Office-type stuff) and want to save some money, the Sempron's are great little CPUs for that and I've built quite a few cheapo PCs using them over the years. Just don't expect miracles for anything beyond that usage.

 

[joefriday]

If you're comparing the same generation of CPUs (Socket A/462, S939, AM2, AM3, etc...) a Sempron is always a lower-cache (onboard memory) Athlon. There were some other differences across the same generation, such as the 939 Semprons lacking 64bit capabilities until very late, like when the AM2 boards were already out. In the latest generations, they were always single core versus the X2s. Bottom line, clock for clock and core for core, in the same generation of CPUs, the Athlons are ALWAYS faster, sometimes up to quite a bit (depending upon the application and its cache dependency).

That said, if you're not doing anything CPU intensive (just a general use computer for web surfing and Office-type stuff) and want to save some money, the Sempron's are great little CPUs for that and I've built quite a few cheapo PCs using them over the years. Just don't expect miracles for anything beyond that usage.

IIRC 939 Semprons never had 64 bit capability, but socket 754 Semprons did eventually get it in 2005. Anyways, 939 Semprons are very rare.

The difference between a K8 Sempron and a K8 Athlon of the same clock was less than 10% in most cases, which makes the Sempron a great buy usually, if all you need is a single core CPU. Alas, not many people needing only a single core CPU these days. Also of note, the new K10 Sempron is the fastest single core CPU to date.

 

[dkapke]

IIRC 939 Semprons never had 64 bit capability, but socket 754 Semprons did eventually get it in 2005. Anyways, 939 Semprons are very rare.

The difference between a K8 Sempron and a K8 Athlon of the same clock was less than 10% in most cases, which makes the Sempron a great buy usually, if all you need is a single core CPU. Alas, not many people needing only a single core CPU these days. Also of note, the new K10 Sempron is the fastest single core CPU to date.

The very last gen 939 Semprons with the E6 steppings (the same ones used in the 754) were 64bit capable but they're harder than heck to find as AMD focused all their Sempron efforts on the 754 (rightfully so). Heck, the only reason I brought that bit of memory up was he was asking about 2.0GHz Sempron versus Athlon and I'm not recalling anything other than the very first-gen AM2 Sempron 3400+ - 3800+ and LE-1100/1150 that were 2.0GHz or lower, so I was assuming he's checking on something 754/939 based. heh-heh.

There's definitely not much of a noticeable difference in single-core Semprons. Heck, I've built quite a few 754 Sempron64-based machines with Vista64 on them for an office and they were quite quick for what they needed with 2Gb of memory. I got them for about $10 a piece which was a steal with some old 754 MBs that I couldn't give away if I tried.

 

[4745454b]

And here I am thinking all K8 based semprons had 64bit support. Could have sworn that was the case.

 

[loneninja]

Sempron wasn't always single core, there were K8 Sempron X2 processors, but limited numbers were sold in the US due to Athlon X2's already being extremely cheap after Core2 was released.