Celeron Vs Sempron PDF

X-bit labs - Print version
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/sempron.html
New Budget Processors Comparison: Intel Celeron D vs. AMD Sempron

The major topic for discussion in our new budget CPU guide is the eternal rivalry between the two new value processor families from AMD and Intel. We tested 14 new processors in 27 benchmarks and now we are ready to name the best choice for a budget system. Find out who the winner is! by Ilya Gavrichenkov 10/01/2004 | 02:15 PM The value processor market has lately been a place of much interest for the user community as both suppliers of x86 CPUs, AMD and Intel, reformed their series of products for inexpensive computer systems throughout the last summer, making obsolete our comparative review of value CPUs we published on our site in the middle of May. The report on the Celeron D posted in June doesnt help much, either.
So, we must return to the problem of value processors once again. The review youre now reading is dedicated to comparing the performance of new value CPUs from AMD and Intel the Sempron and the Celeron D, respectively. Intel has equipped its value series with a new and more advanced core achieving a substantial performance improvement. AMDs new Sempron family has appeared exactly to compete with the rejuvenated Celerons in the bottom tiers of the market. Thus, the situation has changed completely: you had to choose between junior Athlon XP models and Celerons earlier, but now there are other names in the market. To see the standings of the two manufacturers in this market sector, we carry out this review.
Modern Processors for Inexpensive PCs

Before offering you the results of the tests, Id like to describe briefly the basic characteristics of the participants. Intel Celeron D. The Celeron D CPU owes its origin to Intels transition to the 90nm tech process. First appearing in the Pentium 4, the Prescott core soon found an application in the value series. Thanks to the new core, the Celeron D features 256KB L2 cache and SSE2 support. Intel also transferred the new Celeron to the 533MHz front-side bus. All these improvements contribute to a much higher performance of the new processor, making it more competitive from the price/performance point of view, compared to the older Celeron family.
1 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
The use of the advanced Prescott core manufactured with 90nm tech process also allows raising the frequency bar of the new Celeron D family. Right now, the senior model of the series is clocked at 2.93GHz; models with 3GHz and higher frequencies are soon to appear, too.
Note that with all the considerable improvements in the Celeron D, Intel doesnt implement Hyper-Threading technology in it yet. Instead, the new Celeron D models (in the LGA755 variant) feature Execute Disable Bit, a technology for securing the OS against various malicious programs. This technology is supported in Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2, SuSE Linux 9.2 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Update 3. AMD Sempron. AMD answered to the launch of the Celeron D family by releasing its own series of value CPUs called Sempron. Unlike Intel, AMDs engineers didnt introduce any changes into the characteristics of the processor cores they had at their disposal. The Sempron is in fact a renamed Athlon XP, which became very cheap after the arrival of the Athlon 64 CPU series. Semprons with ratings up to 2800+ are Socket A CPUs on old 0.13-micron Thoroughbred-B and Thorton cores with 333MHz FSB, up to 2GHz clock rates, and 256KB of L2 cache. The Sempron 3000+ is a Barton-core processor with 2GHz frequency, 333MHz FSB, and 512KB L2 cache.
2 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
The Sempron family for Socket A systems should oust the Athlon XP processor out of the market: this is an indication of the fact that the time of Socket A processors is over, and they can only serve in low-end computers now. The Sempron family also includes a Socket 754 model (with 3100+ rating). The Sempron 3100+ differs a lot from its junior mates. It is based on the Paris core, sharing the same K8 architecture with top-end CPUs on ClawHammer and NewCastle cores. However, theres little left of the power of the top-end models: the Paris core has only 256KB of L2 cache and has the AMD64 technology disabled. In other words, the Sempron 3100+ is a 32-bit processor, in spite of its links to the Athlon 64 family. On the other hand, the Sempron 3100+, just like the Athlon 64, supports CoolnQuiet technology, SSE2 instruction set, and can use the NX bit.
3 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
The Sempron is a new series of value CPUs from AMD, which is going to develop and extend further. It is clear that well see other Sempron models for Socket 754 and Socket 939 systems soon.
4 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
Intel Celeron D and AMD Sempron: Characteristics and Price

The following table lists the basic characteristics of the models that comprise the AMD Sempron and Intel Celeron D series. Note that the manufacturers both use a rating system for naming their value processors. The correspondence between the rating and the real characteristics is also indicated in this table: Clock frequency L2 Bus Socket type cache frequency Intel Celeron D Celeron D 340 Celeron D 335 Celeron D 330 Celeron D 325 Celeron D 320 Celeron D 315 Sempron 2200+ Sempron 2300+ Sempron 2400+ Sempron 2500+ Sempron 2600+ Sempron 2800+ Sempron 3000+ Sempron 3100+ 2.93GHz 2.8GHz 2.66GHz 2.53GHz 2.4GHz 2.26GHz Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott 256KB 256KB 256KB 256KB 256KB 256KB 533MHz 533MHz 533MHz 533MHz 533MHz 533MHz LGA775, Socket 478 LGA775, Socket 478 LGA775, Socket 478 LGA775, Socket 478 LGA775, Socket 478 LGA775, Socket 478 SSE, SSE2, SSE3 SSE, SSE2, SSE3 SSE, SSE2, SSE3 SSE, SSE2, SSE3 SSE, SSE2, SSE3 SSE, SSE2, SSE3 Execute Disable Bit* Execute Disable Bit* Execute Disable Bit* Execute Disable Bit* Execute Disable Bit* Execute Disable Bit* SIMD instructions support Other technologies
CPU
Core
AMD Sempron 1.5GHz 1.58GHz 1.67GHz 1.75GHz 1.83GHz 2.0GHz 2.0GHz 1.8GHz Thoroughbred, Thorton Thoroughbred Thoroughbred Thoroughbred Thoroughbred Thoroughbred, Thorton Barton Paris 256KB 256KB 256KB 256KB 256KB 256KB 512KB 256KB 333MHz 333MHz 333MHz 333MHz 333MHz 333MHz 333MHz 800MHz Socket A Socket A Socket A Socket A Socket A Socket A Socket A Socket 754 SSE, 3DNow! SSE, 3DNow! SSE, 3DNow! SSE, 3DNow! SSE, 3DNow! SSE, 3DNow! SSE, 3DNow! SSE, SSE2, 3DNow! CoolnQuiet, NX-bit
*Only LGA755 variants of the Celeron D processor support the Execute Disable Bit (NX-bit) technology This table provides all the necessary information about the new value CPU series from AMD and Intel. Id only like
5 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
to draw your attention to one thing. The ratings of Semprons are assigned according to different rules than the ratings of the Athlon XP or 64. For example, Athlon XP CPUs of the same ratings as Semprons have a higher performance due to a higher clock rate and a bigger amount of the cache memory. So why does AMD apply a new rating system to the Sempron? The answer is simple as soon as you take a look at the prices the manufacturers set for their products:
The official price lists are compiled in such a way that every Celeron D model has a Sempron counterpart with a rating equal to the frequency of that Celeron D. It is on this basis that AMD compares its Semprons with Celeron D models and claims superiority of its processors, though only in Winstone and SYSmark (AMD says nothing about how the Sempron compares to the Celeron D in games, for example).
Testbed and Methods

The goal of this test session is to give you a most comprehensive view of the current situation in the market of CPUs priced below $120. Thats why I took all the models from junior up to senior ones from the two value series, Celeron D and Sempron. To give you a perspective of how the performance of the value products differs from that of top-end processors, I also included two 2.8GHz Pentium 4 CPUs on Northwood and Prescott cores as well as an Athlon XP and Athlon 64 (both with 2800+ rating). Besides that, I will show you the results of the Celeron 2.8GHz CPU, just for you to see the progress in the processor development field. I tested the Celeron D processors on a Socket 478 platform, because LGA755 systems and appropriate hardware are rather expensive and limited in spread right now. Besides, as we proved it in one of our earlier articles, the use of DDR2 SDRAM and PCI Express graphics cards brings no advantages as yet. Note also that, although we deal with inexpensive processors, the test platforms were assembled of rather costly and high-performance parts (mainboards with a dual-channel memory controller, and a graphics card with the ATI RADEON 9800 XT chip) we wanted to minimize the influence of other devices of the performance of the CPU proper. So, the testbed systems were comprised of the following hardware: Processors: Intel Celeron D 340 (2.93GHz), Intel Celeron D 335 (2.8GHz), Intel Celeron D 330 (2.66GHz), Intel Celeron D 325 (2.53GHz), Intel Celeron D 320 (2.4GHz), Intel Celeron D 315 (2.26GHz), Intel Celeron 2.8, AMD Sempron 2200+ (1.5GHz), AMD Sempron 2300+ (1.58GHz), AMD Sempron 2400+ (1.67GHz), AMD Sempron 2500+ (1.75GHz) AMD Sempron 2600+ (1.83GHz), AMD Sempron 2800+ (2.0GHz), AMD Sempron 3000+ (2.0GHz),
6 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
AMD Sempron 3100+ (1.8GHz), AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz), AMD Athlon 64 2800+ (1.8GHz) Intel Pentium 4 2.8E (Prescott), Intel Pentium 4 2.8 (Northwood); Mainboards: ASUS P4P800-E Deluxe (Socket 478, i865PE), ASUS A7N8X-E (Socket A, NVIDIA nForce2 Ultra 400), EPoX EP-8KDA3+ (Socket 754, NVIDIA nForce3 250); Memory: 2x256MB DDR400 SDRAM (2-2-2-5 timings); Graphics card: ASUS RADEON 9800XT; Disk subsystem: Western Digital WD400JB. I ran my tests in Windows XP with Service Pack 2 and DirectX 9.0c installed. The BIOS Setup of the mainboards was set up for the maximum performance.
Performance
Futuremark PCMark04
7 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
The processors of the Celeron D family occupy the top lines of the diagram in this test. The senior models with 2.8 and 2.9GHz frequencies are so confident in PCMark04 that they even outperform the AMD Athlon 64 2800+, which definitely does not belong to the value products category. This is the performance bonus that the Celeron D acquired when transitioning to the Prescott core 533MHz FSB, dual-channel DDR333 SDRAM and big L2 cache are the factors that contribute to this excellent result. While Prescott-core Pentium 4 CPUs are just slightly faster than their Northwood-core counterparts, the gap between the old and new Celeron families is much wider the new 90-nm core shows its best sides when employed in low-end processors.
8 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
AMDs Sempron is no match to Intels Celeron D in the speed of working with the memory. This comes as the bandwidth of the CPU-memory thoroughfare in Intels platforms is higher thanks to the 533MHz Quad Pumped Bus. The theoretical peak bandwidth of this channel is 4.2GB/s with Celeron D CPUs, and only 2.7GB/s with Socket A Semprons (3.2GB/s with the Sempron 3100+). Note also by how much the Sempron 3100+ is faster than the other members of its family. Based on the K8 architecture, this model features an integrated memory controller that supports single-channel DDR400 SDRAM. Thats why a system with a Sempron 3100+ will have a higher memory subsystem bandwidth than Socket A systems, and a much lower latency, too. Thus, the Sempron 3100+ is capable of providing a much higher performance in real-life applications than other (Socket A) Semprons. Futuremark 3DMark 2001 SE and 3DMark03
3DMark 2001 SE is very loyal to AMDs Sempron processors, the result of the Sempron 3100+ for Socket 754 looking especially good. According to 3DMark 2001 SE, this processor is not only much faster than any Celeron D, but even outperforms the 2.8GHz Pentium 4 models. As for the Socket A Semprons, their performance is nearly similar to that of the same-price Celeron D models. However, the senior Sempron for Socket A is slightly faster than the Celeron D 340.
9 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
Its different in the newer 3DMark03 suite: the Sempron family looks worse compared to the Celeron D series in this test. The Semprons for Socket A can only compete with the ordinary Celeron based on the old Northwood core, with 128MB L2 cache and 400MHz FSB. The only Sempron to perform more or less successfully here is the Sempron 3100+ intended for Socket 754 systems. This model leaves all the members of the Celeron D family behind, including the senior 340 model (2.93GHz).
The CPU test from the same benchmarking suite produces somewhat different results. The Semprons dont look utterly hopeless against the Celeron D gang. The senior Semprons for Socket A are competing with the middle-range
10 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
Celeron D (320-330), while the Sempron 3100+ for Socket 754 systems is again an unrivalled leader among the value products. Gaming Applications
Since testing the Athlon XP in Quake 3 we know that this CPU architecture isnt the best choice for that shooter. So, we cant hope for anything exceptional from the Socket A Semprons here, which are clocked at lower frequencies than regular Athlon XPs. And really, the Semprons are all in the lower part of the diagram with a single exception of the Sempron 3100+, which features an integrated memory controller and the K8 architecture. This processor is so fast in Quake 3 that it leaves behind the full-featured Pentium 4 on the Prescott core and clocked at 2.8GHz!
11 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
Unreal Tournament 2004 draws quite another performance map: the Socket A Semprons are fast here, outperforming the competing Celeron D models. The Sempron 3100+ is again superior to the rest of the Semprons. This is a characteristic thing, by the way. Although theres little price difference between the Sempron 3100+ and Sempron 3000+, the Socket 754 processor is more future-proof and is just faster in real applications.
12 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
The competing Celeron D and Sempron models of the same price provide nearly the same performance in the semi-synthetic Aquamark3. However, the Socket A Semprons lose the CPU test to their Socket 478 counterparts.
Once again the Sempron 3100+ receives my praises: although its L2 cache is twice smaller than the one of the Athlon 64 2800+, the two processors run Far Cry almost at the same speed. As a result, the Sempron 3100+ outperforms the whole Celeron D family as well as the two Pentium 4 2.8GHz on Prescott and Northwood cores. So, I have to repeat it again that the Sempron 3100+ is a CPU from quite another category than the rest of the value CPUs both for Socket A and for Socket 478.
13 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
The results are typical in the popular Doom 3 game: the performance of the Celeron D and the Sempron differs but slightly, so its hard to claim that any of them is a leader here. However, note that the Sempron 3000+, the only value product with 512KB L2 cache, has a significant advantage over the others. It is an indication of the importance of cache memory in this game. Secondly, the Sempron 3100+ is surprisingly good, too, being just a little slower than the 2.8GHz Prescott. Overall, its hard to say that any of the two value CPU families is better in gaming applications. Depending on specific optimizations or algorithms, either the Celeron D or the Sempron may become the winner. Note also that the K8 architecture of the Sempron 3100+ for Socket 754 systems provides the best performance in almost all the gaming applications in comparison to any other value processor. Office and Digital Content Creation Applications
14 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
AMD assigned ratings to the processors of the Sempron family basing on the results these processors had in Winstone and SYSmark benchmarks. It was done for the performance of each Sempron to be higher than that of the Celeron D of the same price. Thats exactly what we see in the diagrams above. Video, Audio Encoding
15 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
Encoding audio into MP3 format is a specific task. The memory bandwidth and the size of the cache matter little here. It is the raw speed of the central processor thats important now. Keeping this fact in mind, you can easily explain the results: the Semprons for Socket A are slightly faster than the Celeron D, while the Sempron 3100+ loses to its Socket A mates with a lower rating because they work at higher clock rates. All in all, there are no surprises here.
The cache size and the memory speed dont play a crucial part when encoding raw video into MPEG-2 format, either. However, unlike in the audio encoding task, Intels CPUs are much faster thanks to the efficient support of
16 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
SIMD instructions (a fast SSE2 unit and support of SSE3).
The Celeron D processors are faster than the Semprons when encoding video into MPEG-4 format with the DivX codec. The Sempron 3100+ surpasses its Socket A mates, but can only compete with the Celeron D 325 that is clocked at 2.53GHz.
Its practically the same with the XviD codec. Intels transitioning the Celeron series to the Prescott core resulted in a considerable performance boost. Older Celeron and Pentium 4 processors (on the Northwood core) used to lose to
17 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
AMDs products in this test, but now the Sempron and the Athlon 64 find themselves on the losing side. Archiving
It is the memory subsystem that bears the highest load in archiving tasks. Unlike semi-synthetic memory subsystem tests like PCMark04, archiving programs win from both a high CPU-memory bandwidth and a low latency. Besides that, the size of the L2 cache is important here, too. Top lines of the diagram are populated by the processors with the K8 architecture, including Sempron 3100+, which has outperformed both 2.8GHz Pentium 4. This comes as the memory controller integrated into the K8 core reduces the memory latencies greatly. As for the Celeron D, they are faster than the Socket A Semprons due to a wider memory bus as well as efficient data prefetch algorithms implemented in the Prescott core. Antivirus Check As a kind of experiment, I decided to measure the speed of an antivirus check of a folder with files of various types with a popular antivirus program.
18 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
Once again the Semprons for Socket A cant boast high speeds. The Sempron 3100+, being much faster than the Semprons of smaller ratings, is capable of challenging the senior Celeron D clocked at 2.93GHz. Image Editing
Although Intels top-end CPUs are faster in Photoshop than their rivals from AMD, its different with the value products. The senior Sempron models Socket 754 and Socket A models alike run Photoshop almost as fast as
19 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
the senior Celeron D CPUs. Comparing the junior models of the two series I would say that Intels ones are somewhat swifter. Software Development
Compiling program code is one of the few tasks which AMDs value CPUs are better in than their competitors from Intel. Note that even the Barton-core Sempron 3000+ is faster than the 2.8GHz Pentium 4 here.
20 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
Rendering and Professional OpenGL Applications
21 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
The Sempron family processors are overall better in this type of tasks than Celeron D CPUs. Considering that the Celeron D lacks Hyper-Threading, this result is natural. The Athlon XP used to be superior in such applications too until the Pentium 4 started supporting that technology.
Conclusion
This test session ended with a rather unexpected outcome. Earlier, shopping for a value processor was easy as junior
22 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
Athlon XP models were much faster than Celerons. The release of the two new CPU families, however, changed the situation in this market sector dramatically. The performance bar of Intels inexpensive products has been raised by the 256-kilobyte L2 cache and the 533MHz FSB of the new Celeron D. AMD, on the contrary, lowered the speed of the Sempron compared to the Athlon XP, clocking them at lower frequencies or giving a smaller L2 cache. The company, however, claims that the Sempron is faster than the Celeron D:
AMD is true: the Sempron is faster in the two benchmarks they used (Winstone and SYSmark). But we have just carried out a more comprehensive testing session, which says that the Celeron D is often better than the Sempron in real-life tasks. We found our own performance ratings of the processors by calculating the average of the processors relative speeds in the 27 benchmarks we used. The results are normalized to those of the Intel Celeron 2.8:
23 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
It is clear that the Semprons with ratings of 3000+ and lower, i.e. intended for Socket A systems, are slower than the Celerons working at the frequency that equals that rating, by about 5-6%. We shouldnt forget about the Sempron 3100+ model, though. It must be viewed apart from the rest of the family, since this Paris-core processor for Socket 754 systems with the K8 architecture is incomparably better than its junior mates. According to our averaged rating, the Sempron 3100+ is faster than the Sempron 3000+ by about 15%! Thats why its performance is the highest among all the value processors I have reviewed today, approaching that of the Pentium 4 2.8GHz and Athlon 64 2800+. Of course, the appeal of a value processor is not only in its performance, but also in price. It is quite unreasonable to talk about advantages of a value CPU series without taking the price factor into account. So the next diagram shows you the price/performance ratios for AMDs Sempron and Intels Celeron D series. The X axis shows price, the Y axis weighted-mean performance:
24 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50
This picture is self-explanatory I guess. I only wish to draw your attention to the fact that the averaged graph is not true for all possible applications. For example, the Sempron family processors are much faster than the same-price Celeron D CPUs in a number of games.
25 of 25
28/06/2012 13:50

Celeron Vs Sempron PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Celeron Vs Sempron PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

X-bit labs - Print version

New Budget Processors Comparison: Intel Celeron D vs. AMD Sempron

Modern Processors for Inexpensive PCs

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

Intel Celeron D and AMD Sempron: Characteristics and Price

X-bit labs - Print version

Testbed and Methods

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

SIMD instructions (a fast SSE2 unit and support of SSE3).

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

Rendering and Professional OpenGL Applications

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

X-bit labs - Print version

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi