Tim1964 11:03 09 Dec 2005

I'm trying to decide between 2 PC base units. They are identical except for the processors. One is an AMD Sempron 3000+ and the other an Intel 2.8 Ghz. The Intel based one is £17 more. I see that the Sempron runs at 1.8Ghz but is there something about this chip that means it's not just a case of 2.8Ghz v. 1.8Ghz?

  tenplus1 11:24 09 Dec 2005

Personally I prefer AMD processors being both cheaper and faster to my knowledge...

Check these sites out for smoe info:

click here

click here

  SG Atlantis® 11:41 09 Dec 2005

no no no.

AMD numbering is different. the processors can't be compared like that. The 3000 means that it can be compared to a 3gig intel equivalent.

I'd go with AMD.

  961 11:48 09 Dec 2005

To some extent it depends on the main use for the computer

My understanding from recent reviews is that Intel processors are better for things like video editing than AMD but that AMD are often preferred for games and general work

The two processors you mention are not much apart in speed nor it seems in price

I'm an AMD man myself like the two above, but if you are into movies then the Intel may be better

  Tim1964 12:49 09 Dec 2005

Thanks for the replies,

I knew there must have been a reason why the AMD was called a 3000+.

The AMD it is then.

  DieSse 12:58 09 Dec 2005

What AMD processor numbers represent - straight from the horses mouth. You will note they avoid making any comparisons with Intel. If you hunt through the site, you will find they give benchmarks only relative to intel Celeron (ie AMD cut-down version as against Intel cut down version.)

I'm sure you will find the P4 a better choice in this particular case. See this chart click here

  interzone55 13:51 09 Dec 2005

For reference processors that end in RON (Duron, Sempron, Celeron) are the budget chips. They tend to be cut down versions of the main chips.

Therefore they generally have less Level 2 Cache (fast, on-chip ram for storing routines).

A Sempron chip cannot be compared with a P4, it should really be compared with Celeron D chips.

Also the Sempron uses the old Socket 754 shipset rather than the new Socket 939, so upgrades will be limited (no Dual Core support).

  DieSse 14:09 09 Dec 2005

Forgot the AMD link - click here

How would a Sempron 3000 compare to an Athlon XP 3000?

  interzone55 13:51 12 Dec 2005

Considering a Sempron has less L2 cache than an Athlon I would think that it would benchmark slightly slower.

But in the real world I would think there would be very little difference.

  Mavericke 13:09 13 Dec 2005

For me I think the Sempron 3000 is much better. I do know that the L2 cache is much less than the XP3000+ but you can overclock the Sempron 3000+ more than the XP3000+.In a way you can get better results in gaming for XP3000+ compared to Sempron 3000+.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

Illustrator Sylvain Tegroeg created thousands of intricate line drawings for the mobile game…

Best iPad buying guide 2017

Comment télécharger une application indisponible en France ?