The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1. The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D. With a serious advantage in cache size, we would expect the Athlon 64 to perform better, but it also costs more. AMD has moved the Sempron line away from Socket A and all the motherboard eccentricities that went along with it, so we have no problem recommending it for low-cost machines. We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3.
|Date Added:||19 August 2004|
|File Size:||61.93 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
AMD Sempron 3400+ 1.8GHz (SDA3400IAA3CW) Processor
The hard drives were defragged prior to each major benchmark run. In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather 300 simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel.
The story is the same in LightWave rendering.
We extract two of the multithreading results from PCMark05 for one set of multitasking numbers, then run Photoshop Elements and Norton AntiVirus simultaneously as another amv. The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests.
The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: With a serious advantage in cache size, we would expect the Athlon 64 to perform better, but it also costs more. It runs at 2. Now we turn to actual performance using real applications. Sure, the Athlon 64 with its larger cache and larger price tag is faster than the Sempron, but the budget chip still manages to hold its own, and it just creams the Celeron D.
The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D. We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3.
AMD Sempron + / GHz processor Overview – CNET
The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. All make fairly heavy use of the processor and memory subsystem. The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster.
AMD has moved the Sempron line away from Socket A and all the motherboard eccentricities that went along with it, so we have no problem recommending it for low-cost machines.
Intel Core i3 vs AMD Sempron +
Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D. We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. We can say this, though: The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options. The games amv Doom 3, Painkiller 1. In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit.
Sempron 3400+ Review
In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. We sempgon Adobe After Effects 6. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge.
AMD has a winner here, despite the relatively high price. PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such sejpron memory, processor, and hard drive. There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:.
Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved memory support. Also, we used the rundll The smaller cache and lower pin count of Socket amv AMD produce Sempron chips much more cheaply, and the small die size in combination with reduced clock speeds makes for a cooler-running chip, too.
This Socket CPU runs at 3. In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional.