AMD Sempron: A Fresh Take on Budget Computing
by Derek Wilson on July 28, 2004 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Price/Performance Analysis
In comparing the price/performance data between similarly priced Celerons and Semprons, we can see that the Semprons take down the Intel platform with ease. In most benchmarks, the Sempron processors outperform the Celeron 335, and since both flavors are cheaper than the slower Celeron, price/performance is obviously in favor of AMD here. This isn't even a contest.And we can take it even further and look at how much it would cost to build a Celeron system and a Sempron system. The common components between our systems are: 512MB DDR 400 ($90), Radeon 9800 Pro 256 ($250), 80GB WD harddrive ($60). We found some really cheap cases and power supplies for less than $30. All this brings our base total to $430.
To round out our computers, the Sempron system would have a midrange nForce2 board ($50) and a Sempron 2800+ ($103).
Total Sempron System cost: $583
For the Celeron system, we would need an 856PE board ($70) and a Celeron 335 ($127).
Total Celeron System cost: $627
If we bought a Celeron system, we would be getting lower performance for 7.5% more money. This percentage would be even higher if we didn't test with such an expensive video card. Of course, we can't really make statements about system performance with lower end video cards when it comes to games. Business applications, however, are much less affected by video card choice. We could go with integrated graphics or even a $60 video card. We would spend less than $400 on a Sempron system, saving 10% over a Celeron 335 system.
Or we could look at it from another perspective. Rather than building a cheaper Sempron 2800+ system, we could build a Sempron 3100+ system and get a huge performance leap at the same price point. Maybe we've run the "Sempron is a better value than Celeron" into the ground, but the numbers just don't lie.
Moving on to the next comparison, the very low priced 166MHz Tbred Athlon XP 2600+ (which has a sightly higher clock speed than the Sempron 2800+) serves to beat the newest AMD budget chip at its own game, posting better price/performance numbers in our tests. Well, it's really that they post just about the same performance numers in every test, and that the Sempron costs at least $20 more (which, at these prices, is at least 25% more).
Though the Athlon 64 2800+ led just about all of the benchmarks, its higher price makes the Sempron a better value if you don't need the extra little bit of oomph. The winstone benchmarks tell us that average business users won't see an impact from cutting out half of their cache and going with Sempron, and the small performance hit that we see shows up mostly in gaming and source compilation.
Of course, this price/performance data doesn't take into consideration the value added to the Athlon 64 2800+ via x86-64 support. If this is a feature that the user wants, the extra $25 or so won't be a deal breaker, and the slight performance advantage will be an added bonus.
In the end, feature set is the only driving force between which processor to pick when it comes to Sempron 3100+ and Athlon 64 2800+, as performance isn't a large factor in the equation.
So who's the price performance leader here? That would be the inexpensive Athlon XP chips. But the star of the show is really the K8 Sempron, which knocks about $30 off the price of the 2800+ to deliver performance that is right on par with the more expensive chip.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
abrogard - Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - link
I think there's something should sweep through the internet: Clearly labelling the country of origin of your site! It's not clear which country we are in, often, and therefore what money we're talking.
Followed by clearly dating the page.
abrogard@yahoo.com
:)
cleanjew - Friday, January 14, 2005 - link
Hi, can someone tell me if it would be a good idea to buy a computer running an amd sepron 3000+, i would be using it to run mid range games, and i would like to use internet and productivity software at a fast speed. Do you also think it would be faster than a celeron and comparable to a p4?Thanks
If you want you could email me at jewish-mexican@charter.net
trexpesto - Saturday, August 21, 2004 - link
I just got a Shuttle AN35N and retail TBred 2700+ for ~119 incl. shipping and tax, on sale at outpost.Sparrow - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
But in the test he say's that the extra 83 MHz make the difference !!!Jens
coldpower27 - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
I am guessing Anandtech was using the Barton based 2600+, you know the one with 1.92GHZ/333FSB.Sparrow - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
???? If a Sempron 2800+ is a Thoroughbred (166*12) and the xp 2600+ is a Thoroughbred (166*12.5) why can the Sempron be faster in some test's ? an error or are there some changes in memory speed ????? !!!!!!Jens
MAME - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
awesome AMD, just awesomethis chip is very nice
coldpower27 - Friday, July 30, 2004 - link
Hey Trogdor, notice I can post here now too:)Anyway, just to sum up I would like to see these processor as well.
Athlon XP-M Barton @ 2.3,2.4,2.5 using 200x11.5, 200x12, 200x12.5
Celeron Northwood-128
2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8
Celeron Prescott-256
2.4,2.53,2.66,2.8
Duron Applebred
1.4,1.8
Pentium 4 Northwood, Prescott
2.8 with FSB800
Zebo - Thursday, July 29, 2004 - link
oh LOL:)TrogdorJW - Thursday, July 29, 2004 - link
Woah, KF... that was a whole lot of stuff to post, quite a bit of it rather unrelated. You must have even more free time than me! ;)Zebo, you apparently missed the point completely: "The overlapping Athlon FX, Athlon 64, and now Sempron names is going to really cause confusion among the *less-informed* public." The less-informed public doesn't include anyone reading hardware sites or OC forums. Yeah, Sempron is the value system meant to compete with Celeron, but both AMD and Intel are happy to sell lots of slower, "crippled" chips to the uninformed buyers. The 2.8 GHz Celeron chips were absolutely terrible performers - about as fast as a P4 1.8 or 2.0 - but Intel was more than happy to dupe people into purchasing those with their high clockspeed. The Celeron D is better, but the tactic remains the same. AMD is now joining them, calling lesser processors "3100+" and "2800+" and leaving it to the salespeople.
You don't think there are going to be plenty of salespeople pushing these systems with claims like "the Sempron 2800+ is basically just as fast as a 2.8 GHz chip, and the only difference between it and the Athlon 64 2800+ is the lack of 64-bit support, which really isn't needed anyway"? In sales, it's a lot more important to get a sale than to get a big sale. They'll shoot for the big sales if possible, but when someone wants a cheap system, they'll talk up the Sempron (and/or Celeron) as though it's just as good as a more expensive Athlon64/Pentium4.
That's what I meant when I said it's creating confusion, and that the confusion is likely to be an intended consequence. Car manufacturers do the same thing: you don't want an informed purchaser coming in to buy a car! You want the salesman to have the advantage, so that they can get the buyer into *any* Ford, Chevy, Honda, etc. and keep them from going to a different store.
Most PC shos (and car dealerships) make a set amount of money off of a sale, because the hard drives, case, monitor, RAM, etc. all have markups. So if someone buys a computer, the shop makes at least $100. $100 on a $500 computer is a good return. If they buy a $1000 computer, they might make $150 to $200. Granted, on the "luxury" computer systems that cost over $2000, they'll make a killing, but those are hardly ever sold.