AMD and Intel Budget CPUs
Moving on to the AMD budget offerings, things have become both more interesting and less interesting. With socket AM2, you can now run everything from a lowly Sempron up through the fastest Athlon FX-62 on the same motherboard. Sounds great, right? The dual channel memory controller present on all AM2 processors should also improve performance relative to the older socket 754 Semprons; in fact, Sempron chips running on socket AM2 should be very close in performance to single core Athlon 64 chips. So what's the problem? Prices. Here are the socket AM2 Sempron offerings.
Other than the Sempron 2800+ [RTPE: SDA2800CNBOX] ($65) and the Sempron 3000+ [RTPE: SDA3000CNBOX] ($75), all of the Sempron AM2 parts cost as much as equivalently clocked Athlon 64 AM2 chips. The 2800+ and 3000+ are clocked at 1.6 GHz with 128KB and 256KB of L2 cache respectively, with the 3200+ and 3400+ clocked at 1.8 GHz -- the same as the Athlon 64 3000+. If you're looking to save money by purchasing the cheapest processor available, go ahead and grab the 2800+. Otherwise, you might as well skip the Sempron line and go straight for the single core Athlon 64s.
What about socket 754? AMD has indicated that socket 754 will remain around longer than socket 939 in terms of chip production, but that's probably more for the mobile sector than for budget offerings. If you've already got a socket 754 system you might be able to find a reasonable upgrade, but as more time passes socket 939/AM2 are only becoming more attractive for the desktop. Anything beyond the Athlon 64 3400+ Newcastle [RTPE: ADA3400AXBOX] ($146 retail) and you should look to upgrading your motherboard as well as processor instead. (We mention socket 939 as an upgrade option simply because if you already have DDR memory you will be able to keep that, move to a dual channel memory controller, and get the option for dual core processors as well.)
We didn't include the non-64-bit Semprons, simply because they are priced basically the same as the 64-bit versions so there's no reason to lose that feature. Also note that similar to the AM2 processors, there's no reason to get anything above the Sempron 64 3000+, as the socket 754 Athlon 64 parts are priced about the same as the Sempron 64s with the same clock speed.
Intel's NetBurst architecture is far less forgiving of L2 cache size reductions, so even with higher clock speeds than Pentium 4 chips the Celeron D will often perform worse. If you need a cheap socket 775 chip and you don't want to spend $85 on the Pentium 4 506, we would suggest going with the Celeron D 331 [RTPE: BX80547RE2667CN] for $53. For about $10 more, you could also upgrade to the Celeron D 341 [RTPE: BX80547RE2933CN]. Even with a clock speed of 2.93 GHz, though, the 341 will typically be outperformed by the 2.66 GHz Pentium 4 506.
Moving on to the AMD budget offerings, things have become both more interesting and less interesting. With socket AM2, you can now run everything from a lowly Sempron up through the fastest Athlon FX-62 on the same motherboard. Sounds great, right? The dual channel memory controller present on all AM2 processors should also improve performance relative to the older socket 754 Semprons; in fact, Sempron chips running on socket AM2 should be very close in performance to single core Athlon 64 chips. So what's the problem? Prices. Here are the socket AM2 Sempron offerings.
What about socket 754? AMD has indicated that socket 754 will remain around longer than socket 939 in terms of chip production, but that's probably more for the mobile sector than for budget offerings. If you've already got a socket 754 system you might be able to find a reasonable upgrade, but as more time passes socket 939/AM2 are only becoming more attractive for the desktop. Anything beyond the Athlon 64 3400+ Newcastle [RTPE: ADA3400AXBOX] ($146 retail) and you should look to upgrading your motherboard as well as processor instead. (We mention socket 939 as an upgrade option simply because if you already have DDR memory you will be able to keep that, move to a dual channel memory controller, and get the option for dual core processors as well.)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
Calin - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
The only reason you could have to buy an Sempron (AM2) over an Athlon would be the lower power use (35W TDP for the new Semprons compared to the 65W TDP of the Athlons64 AM2 (or 89W of the X2 versions).Could there be an evaluation of the difference in power use between the same frequency Sempron and Athlon64 processors? Thanks
johnsonx - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
The low power Semprons aren't available yet, nor are the low power Athlons at the current time. Currently shipping Semprons and Athlons are all 65W TDP.Looking at the recent price lists, I'd make a bet that all the single-core Athlon64's are going away before long, with the possible exception of the highest performing parts. It's the same logic that applies to the 1Mb cache parts: single-core A64's cost AMD more to make than Semprons, yet AMD can't really charge more money for them because of their convoluted model numbering system.
Having an Athlon64 3000+ that is clocked the same but has 4x the cache as a Sempron 3400+ just makes a mess of things.
mino - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link
Well they are :)AFAIK pretty much any 90nm Sempron(doesn't matter which socket) is in the 20W-35W power consumption range.
Calin - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link
I saw on offers Sempron (AM2) processors with TDP of 35W, compared to the Athlon64 (AM2 versions) with TDP of 65W and the dual cores (again AM2) with 89W TDP.I suppose the low voltage versions are not here yet, but the power rating in offers still remains
JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
You will also be able to get low power X2 and Athlon 64 chips in the near future. I will see about testing an Athlon 64 3000+ (AM2) compared to the Sempron 3400+ (AM2). My experience in the past is that AMD's TDP power numbers have been extremely conservative, so I would be surprised if Sempron chips are more than 5 Watts lower. That might matter for notebooks/laptops, but for desktops 5 W is basically meaningless -- you're looking at $5 (or less) for power costs over the course of an entire year, assuming the system is running 24/7/365.Calin - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link
Thank you very muchSonicIce - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
I can't belive how cheap single core Athlon 64's have gotten. This is a very good thing! Hopefully dual cores will fall soon.jelifah - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link
That's what Jarred was trying to say in his article when he said 'if you can wait a month'July 24th AMD is expected to slash prices by around 50%. And yes that includes the pretty little X2 3800+, which should be available for $150. Now the only question is how quick NewEgg can ship them on that day, because I WILL place an order at that price.
I'm actually going to be paying LESS for a dual core than I paid for my socket 939 3000+ single core 18 months ago.
ChronoReverse - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link
I'll be watching prices very carefully in the upcoming months. Right now I'm still undecided as to getting an used s939 3800+, a new AM2 3800+ or getting the $160 Conroe.Great times ahead now that there's competition again.
Rebel44 - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
Yeah they will - I´m just waiting for release of new Intel´s procesors because AMD announced to lower prices of X-2´s by up to 50%:-)