AMD SEMPRON 3400 DRIVER
Also, we used the rundll PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive. 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 more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster. The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge.
|Date Added:||27 June 2009|
|File Size:||61.77 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D.
PassMark – AMD Sempron + – Price performance comparison
The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. All make fairly heavy use of the processor and memory subsystem. We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional.
List of AMD Sempron microprocessors
It runs at 2. In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel.
PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive. This Socket CPU runs at 3. The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D. AMD has moved the Sempron line away from Socket A and all sempfon motherboard eccentricities that went along with it, so we have no problem recommending it for low-cost machines.
In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely.
The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1. We used Adobe After Effects 6. In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit. The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still.
With a serious advantage in cache size, we would expect the Athlon 64 to perform better, but it also costs more.
Sempron + Review – Hardware Secrets
AMD has a winner here, despite the relatively high price. Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved memory support.
Now we turn to actual performance using real applications. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: We can say this, though: 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 test.
The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options. The hard drives were defragged prior to each major benchmark run. 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 A,d D.
The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster.
Also, we used the rundll The smaller cache and lower pin count of Socket help 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. Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: We also perform a pair of pure rendering swmpron with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3.
There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:. The story is the same in LightWave rendering.