StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Im looking for a laptop for school next year, and I was wondering if anyone here had any experience with an AMD Sempron processor? Ive been doing research on it, but I wanted to know if anyone has had any bad experience with a computer using that.

Any help would rock!

the g/f just got a averatec which is running a Sempron processor.

So far, she's loving the fuck out of it. Thier the next step up from the Throughbreed processors, and right below the AMD64's.

They don't seem to run extremely hot, stable, high powered. yeah, she likes it.

Beg to differ. Semprons are BELOW the Athlon XPs...they're the Celerons of the AMD world. Not bad c hips, but not performance, by any stretch.

They're basicly the Celerons of AMD.

An Athlon XP with the cache stripped off, IIRC.

If you don't plan on doing high-intensity gaming (eg the latest games like HL2, UT2k5, etc) it's fine.

And besides, you shouldn't be gaming on a laptop anyway.

White Haven wrote:Beg to differ. Semprons are BELOW the Athlon XPs...they're the Celerons of the AMD world. Not bad c hips, but not performance, by any stretch.

No they're not below the Athlon XP's.

Socket 462 Semprons are merely Athlon XP's that have been rerated (against a celeron instead of a P4. This raises the rating number.). A 1.9 Ghz Sempron is the exact same chip as the Athlon XP of the same clock speed and core.

Socket 754 Semprons do have less cache than their Athlon64 brethren, but it doesn't cause near the performance hit that the cache reduction did for Intel with the Celerons because the A64's aren't nearly as dependent on their large cache as the P4's are.

A S754 or S462 Sempron is much more powerful than its Intel Celeron counterpart. Just remember that the model number of the Sempron is rated against a Celeron (3000+ is equivalent to a 3Ghz Celeron, not a 3Ghz P4), and you'll do fine.

White Haven wrote:Beg to differ. Semprons are BELOW the Athlon XPs...they're the Celerons of the AMD world. Not bad c hips, but not performance, by any stretch.

well, I have been known to be wrong, so I am perhaps likewise here.

It was explained to me the difference between the Sempron's ant the XP processors by one of the techs at a local comp store, perhaps he fucked it up.


I haven't been following many of the developments in the newer chips, sadly enough, and it shows.

The confusion results from the boneheaded decision by AMD to use the Sempron name for 2 different series of processors.

Imagine being the poor schmuck who buys a Socket 754 mobo and calls up the local PC store to order a Sempron 3000+ and gets a Socket 462 (Athlon XP socket) Sempron that won't work in his board.

Old socket Semprons are cut down Athlon XP's AND simply rebranded Athlon XP's.

Socket 754 Semprons are cut down Athlon 64's, and their not bad preformers, but their not gaming processors, not by any stretch.

I just had to comment that Sempron is probably one of the fakest-sounding real brand name that I've ever heard. It sounds like some cheap knock-off computer made in Bankok or such.

A little bit OT but is that true AMD doesn't make Barton anymore?

And what is the alternative of 3000+ Barton? A socket A Sempron with equal clock rate?

Aside of reduced cache, is there anymore drawbacks of Sempron compared to T-Bred and/or Barton?

And how much the cache matters for gaming purpose?

IIRC, AMD is going to quit making all Socket 462 processors soon, not just the Barton core XP's.

Bartons are still available here in the US.
There are Barton core Semprons, but most of them are Thoroughbreds.

As for your other questions, I'm not really sure.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:A little bit OT but is that true AMD doesn't make Barton anymore?

And what is the alternative of 3000+ Barton? A socket A Sempron with equal clock rate?

Aside of reduced cache, is there anymore drawbacks of Sempron compared to T-Bred and/or Barton?

And how much the cache matters for gaming purpose?

They stopped making them around the time Socket 939 arrived, and all remaining Athlon XP's in AMD's stockrooms were rebranded Semprons.

Ace Pace wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:A little bit OT but is that true AMD doesn't make Barton anymore?

And what is the alternative of 3000+ Barton? A socket A Sempron with equal clock rate?

Aside of reduced cache, is there anymore drawbacks of Sempron compared to T-Bred and/or Barton?

And how much the cache matters for gaming purpose?

They stopped making them around the time Socket 939 arrived, and all remaining Athlon XP's in AMD's stockrooms were rebranded Semprons.

So it's just different name? How about cache size? Is it reduced in those newly labelled CPUs?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:A little bit OT but is that true AMD doesn't make Barton anymore?

And what is the alternative of 3000+ Barton? A socket A Sempron with equal clock rate?

Aside of reduced cache, is there anymore drawbacks of Sempron compared to T-Bred and/or Barton?

And how much the cache matters for gaming purpose?

They stopped making them around the time Socket 939 arrived, and all remaining Athlon XP's in AMD's stockrooms were rebranded Semprons.

So it's just different name? How about cache size? Is it reduced in those newly labelled CPUs?

For the Socket A Semprons, no, its just a Athlon XP(the core differs between CPU's) with a new lid.

For Socket 754, its cut down, I THINK 128kb, not sure.

Well guys, thanks for the help...but from what im seeing in the semprons, i think ill just stick with athlons or something