PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive. It runs at 2. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional. 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. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: 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.
|Date Added:||18 August 2008|
|File Size:||36.37 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
With a serious advantage in cache size, we would expect the Athlon 64 to perform better, but it also costs more.
List of AMD Sempron microprocessors
Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional.
The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options. PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive. We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance.
AMD Sempron 3400+ 1.8GHz (SDA3400IAA3CW) Processor
The hard drives were defragged prior to each major benchmark run. The smaller cache and lower pin count of Socket help Semprob produce Sempron chips much more cheaply, and the small die size in combination with reduced clock speeds makes for a cooler-running and, too.
We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge.
The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. We can say this, though: The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1. The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. This Socket CPU runs aamd 3.
List of AMD Sempron microprocessors – Wikipedia
The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D. All make fairly heavy use of the processor and ad subsystem. We extract two of the multithreading results from PCMark05 for one set of multitasking numbers, then run Photoshop Elements sepron Norton AntiVirus simultaneously as another test. 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.
In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. The story is the same in LightWave rendering.
bit Budget CPU: AMD Sempron + – ExtremeTech
There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:. Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: The Sempron soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still. The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster. Also, we used the rundll In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely. Sepmron has a winner here, despite the relatively high price. It runs at 2.
Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved zmd support. The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D. In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit.
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.
We used Adobe After Effects 6. Now we turn to actual performance using real applications. In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model semprom animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel.