Ok, here is one that has bugged the nips out of me recently.
Forgetting my Socket A and 939 systems, I am looking at tjust the 754 CPUs here, but I have 4 of them, each are completely different specs:-
Sempron 3300 ( 2.0Ghz & 128k )
Sempron 3100 ( 1.8Ghz & 256k )
NewCastle 3000 ( 2.0Ghz & 512k )
ClawHammer 3700 ( 2.4Ghz & 1mb )
Now, the ClawHammer is a fine performer, nowhere near as quick as its S939 counterpart from my tests on my own PCs, so lets look at the other 3.
One thing that bugs me, is that the 3300 being given a 3300 rating, should be the fastest shouldnt it? - it is in fact the slowest... On the desktop its not too hot, showing a few areas where it slows down, most noticeably when you have something like Office Open, and then you open Outlook Express, it gets hit for 6, while the Newcastle handles this much better, even thats not a speed demon to be honest.
So, where the hell does AMD get off in giving these CPUs the ratings they do?
Especially when comparing the Newcastle 3000 against the Sempron 3300 when the newcastle has 4 times more cache, and the Sempron has a 166FSB as opposed to the Newcastles 200 - HOW?
It does not even compare to the 3100 either.
Yesterday, I decided to get my daughter up to 64bit, and I gave her the 3300 in a DFI LanParty Mobo instead of her XP2400 in the Abit KD7R and after just about half an hour, I decided not to be so cruel, and gave her the XP back.... Dotn get me wrong here, the 3300 felt a lot snappier for a short while, but once I started to throw stuff at it, it was falling over all the time with pauses every few seconds and even kids games were jerky.
My next plan is to compare the Smepron 2600 against an XP2600
Forgetting my Socket A and 939 systems, I am looking at tjust the 754 CPUs here, but I have 4 of them, each are completely different specs:-
Sempron 3300 ( 2.0Ghz & 128k )
Sempron 3100 ( 1.8Ghz & 256k )
NewCastle 3000 ( 2.0Ghz & 512k )
ClawHammer 3700 ( 2.4Ghz & 1mb )
Now, the ClawHammer is a fine performer, nowhere near as quick as its S939 counterpart from my tests on my own PCs, so lets look at the other 3.
One thing that bugs me, is that the 3300 being given a 3300 rating, should be the fastest shouldnt it? - it is in fact the slowest... On the desktop its not too hot, showing a few areas where it slows down, most noticeably when you have something like Office Open, and then you open Outlook Express, it gets hit for 6, while the Newcastle handles this much better, even thats not a speed demon to be honest.
So, where the hell does AMD get off in giving these CPUs the ratings they do?
Especially when comparing the Newcastle 3000 against the Sempron 3300 when the newcastle has 4 times more cache, and the Sempron has a 166FSB as opposed to the Newcastles 200 - HOW?
It does not even compare to the 3100 either.
Yesterday, I decided to get my daughter up to 64bit, and I gave her the 3300 in a DFI LanParty Mobo instead of her XP2400 in the Abit KD7R and after just about half an hour, I decided not to be so cruel, and gave her the XP back.... Dotn get me wrong here, the 3300 felt a lot snappier for a short while, but once I started to throw stuff at it, it was falling over all the time with pauses every few seconds and even kids games were jerky.
My next plan is to compare the Smepron 2600 against an XP2600