It runs at 2. The story is the same in LightWave rendering. With a serious advantage in cache size, we would expect the Athlon 64 to perform better, but it also costs more. The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D. PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive. Also, we used the rundll Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved memory support.
|Date Added:||2 May 2005|
|File Size:||24.11 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We used Adobe After Effects 6. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: The story is the same in LightWave rendering.
There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:. The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster.
The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: AMD has a winner here, despite the relatively high price.
Sempron + Review – Hardware Secrets
We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. We extract two of the multithreading results from PCMark05 for one set of multitasking numbers, then run Photoshop Elements sempfon Norton AntiVirus simultaneously as another test.
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 the motherboard eccentricities that went along with it, so we have no problem recommending it for low-cost machines. 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. Now we turn to actual performance using real and. The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1. 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.
Also, we used sempeon rundll The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D. We can say this, though: 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.
The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge. We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3.
The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still. In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit.
List of AMD Sempron microprocessors
The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options.
In the real world, semprom optimizations can vary widely. The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional.
AMD Sempron 3400+ / 1.8 GHz processor Series
In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than semprob final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel. 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. In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. The hard drives were defragged prior to each major benchmark run. Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved semprln support.