Introduction
While we have covered the high-end crowd of the 64-bit arena, we haven’t touched on what might be the 64-bit revolution for the value and mainstream users. Both AMD and Intel now produce 64-bit budget chips.
Now that Socket A has been phased out, and no more Socket A CPU’s are hitting the market, to keep budget at its best, AMD has gone to its original Socket 754 K8 architecture to produce the Sempron 64 CPU.
Meanwhile, Intel is also shipping its value based Celeron D now with 64-bit instructions. The first Celeron appeared back when Slot 1 made its debut, back when Pentium II was the unaffordable CPU of many. To keep the masses happy, Celeron was introduced initially without a Level 2 cache, this caused a lot of controversy as the CPU was extremely slow at executions. Celeron-A came out shortly after which included 128K of L2 cache rather than the 512K that the Pentium II had. The one thing Celeron had over Pentium II was the fact that its L2 cache was built onto the CPU die, the first CPU from Intel to do this. This led the way for Socket 370 as well as the later Pentium 3 CPU’s on this same socket.
Celeron moved over to the Socket 478 platform based on the Northwood core Pentium 4 design, with less cache, as always. Today Celeron-D is being produced on the LGA775 format and including 64-bit instructions.
Today we are pitting the AMD Sempron 3000+ against the Intel Celeron-D 336. How will they perform? Who will win? Let’s find out.
Final Thoughts
It is clear that the battle between AMD and Intel is at a hot point. Intel is still hurting with its losses to AMD over the Athlon vs. Pentium battles and not only does it have to fight this one, but now it has a competitor for the value segment, the AMD Sempron.
Intel’s value market was unchallenged for some time with the demise of Duron, but now it’s starting to show again that AMD can put its muscle into both high-end and value segments, and still give the users what they want.
Overall the Sempron proved itself to be the better CPU, while lagging behind in the encoding and synthetic segments, when it starts to put its K8 architecture behind games, it’s clearly the winner overall.
Today we have shown what budget can do and what both companies have on offer. Hopefully we will see the Sempron evolve to include some of the higher functions like DDR-2 later on this year and give Intel something more to worry about.
For the detailed review with benchies visit Tweaktown
While we have covered the high-end crowd of the 64-bit arena, we haven’t touched on what might be the 64-bit revolution for the value and mainstream users. Both AMD and Intel now produce 64-bit budget chips.
Now that Socket A has been phased out, and no more Socket A CPU’s are hitting the market, to keep budget at its best, AMD has gone to its original Socket 754 K8 architecture to produce the Sempron 64 CPU.
Meanwhile, Intel is also shipping its value based Celeron D now with 64-bit instructions. The first Celeron appeared back when Slot 1 made its debut, back when Pentium II was the unaffordable CPU of many. To keep the masses happy, Celeron was introduced initially without a Level 2 cache, this caused a lot of controversy as the CPU was extremely slow at executions. Celeron-A came out shortly after which included 128K of L2 cache rather than the 512K that the Pentium II had. The one thing Celeron had over Pentium II was the fact that its L2 cache was built onto the CPU die, the first CPU from Intel to do this. This led the way for Socket 370 as well as the later Pentium 3 CPU’s on this same socket.
Celeron moved over to the Socket 478 platform based on the Northwood core Pentium 4 design, with less cache, as always. Today Celeron-D is being produced on the LGA775 format and including 64-bit instructions.
Today we are pitting the AMD Sempron 3000+ against the Intel Celeron-D 336. How will they perform? Who will win? Let’s find out.
Final Thoughts
It is clear that the battle between AMD and Intel is at a hot point. Intel is still hurting with its losses to AMD over the Athlon vs. Pentium battles and not only does it have to fight this one, but now it has a competitor for the value segment, the AMD Sempron.
Intel’s value market was unchallenged for some time with the demise of Duron, but now it’s starting to show again that AMD can put its muscle into both high-end and value segments, and still give the users what they want.
Overall the Sempron proved itself to be the better CPU, while lagging behind in the encoding and synthetic segments, when it starts to put its K8 architecture behind games, it’s clearly the winner overall.
Today we have shown what budget can do and what both companies have on offer. Hopefully we will see the Sempron evolve to include some of the higher functions like DDR-2 later on this year and give Intel something more to worry about.
For the detailed review with benchies visit Tweaktown