Worth it?

ATIorNvidia · 13 Sep 2006 at 12:53

I have a sempron 300+ A Socket processor,
people tell me how much better amd athlon xp is better than amd sempron, is it worth upgrade from Sempron 2GHz to a amd thlon xp 1.8GHz?

TomL · 13 Sep 2006 at 13:24

I think that's more of a downgrade than an upgrade, I say this only because the Sempron is newer than the Barton Athlon. The Sempron's operate on SKT "A", 754, 939 and AM2 and the Barton Athlon's operate on only SKT "A".

Tetras · 13 Sep 2006 at 13:35

It'd be more of a side step then an upgrade, I'd say you'd be better off saving up, at least a 939 64 3700/4000+, or something along those lines, preferably a Core 2 Duo/X2.

Cob · 13 Sep 2006 at 14:03

Well a Socket A Sempron is to an Athlon XP what a Celeron is to a Pentium.

And you'll probably find that your Socket A Sempron is just a repackaged Athlon XP T-bred. AMD had too many 256kb T-breds left in stock when they released the 512kb Barton and had to get rid of them somehow. Hence the Sempron was 'born'.

If your motherboard allows you to adjust the multiplier and fsb, then look for an Athlon XP-M (M = Mobile) 2500+, 2600+ or 2800+. They overclock like crazy and will put your Sempron to shame.

Tetras · 13 Sep 2006 at 14:18

Afaik the socket A Sempron 3000+ has 512KB L2 same as a Barton, so whatever he gets even clocked, it won't be that big a deal.

Cob · 13 Sep 2006 at 14:36

Tetras said:
Afaik the socket A Sempron 3000+ has 512KB L2 same as a Barton, so whatever he gets even clocked, it won't be that big a deal.

You're right :eek:

They must have been repackaged 333 MHz Athlon XP 3000+'s :confused:

Tetras · 13 Sep 2006 at 15:19

It does seem a little odd either way, *** uber Sempron

TheMightyTen · 13 Sep 2006 at 15:36

AMD did repackage overstocks of Skt A Barts when they went Obselete, after 754/939. The irony was places were still selling XP 3000's at 50% more again than the Sempron :eek:

ATIorNvidia · 13 Sep 2006 at 16:43

Problem is my motherboard i squite old you see, so it can only handle a 1.8GHz xp procssor at max, i guess what i see from the replys, i should stick to my sempron 3000+ till i get a new computer?

Tetras · 13 Sep 2006 at 17:01

That is my vote

ATIorNvidia · 13 Sep 2006 at 18:52

i guess il stick with sempron, is there any suggestions that could change my mind? :O

gurusan · 13 Sep 2006 at 21:44

ATIorNvidia said:
i guess il stick with sempron, is there any suggestions that could change my mind? :O

Nope...just work towards getting a newer setup ASAP

ATIorNvidia · 14 Sep 2006 at 02:00

im looking to get a new PC around december anyway

Jleo · 14 Sep 2006 at 14:45

ATIorNvidia said:
Problem is my motherboard i squite old you see, so it can only handle a 1.8GHz xp procssor at max, i guess what i see from the replys, i should stick to my sempron 3000+ till i get a new computer?

Sempron 3000+, 2000 MHz, 512 Kb, 333 MHz, 12x, 1.60 V

What motherboard have you? lets see if it has any overclocking potential

El Jimben · 14 Sep 2006 at 18:22

ATIorNvidia said:
Problem is my motherboard i squite old you see, so it can only handle a 1.8GHz xp procssor at max, i guess what i see from the replys, i should stick to my sempron 3000+ till i get a new computer?

You could always try updating the mobo on your bios, might give you more options ie a faster Sempron? Anyone see the Sempron 3000+ on this site with 1.8GHz clock speed & whopping 128K L2 cache! :eek:

Cob · 14 Sep 2006 at 18:24

El Jimben said:
You could always try updating the mobo on your bios, might give you more options ie a faster Sempron? Anyone see the Sempron 3000+ on this site with 1.8GHz clock speed & whopping 128K L2 cache!

That'll be a 754 Sempron.

Jleo · 14 Sep 2006 at 20:48

El Jimben said:
updating the mobo on your bios

Titter

Nutbusta · 14 Sep 2006 at 23:54

Cob said:
That'll be a 754 Sempron.

Which clocked properly will run rings around anything socket A !

BAre that in mind before you mock its inadaquate manhood.

Uhum, I mean cache

Jleo · 15 Sep 2006 at 00:06

Nutbusta said:
Which clocked properly will run rings around anything socket A !

BAre that in mind before you mock its inadaquate manhood.

Uhum, I mean cache

Yes I agree size is over rated this has been proven time and time again per example San Diego 512Kb cache compared to 1Mb cache the only thing you have gained is less money in your pocket LOL

Cob · 15 Sep 2006 at 00:22

Nutbusta said:
Which clocked properly will run rings around anything socket A !

BAre that in mind before you mock its inadaquate manhood.

Uhum, I mean cache

Erm my 5 words weren't mocking.

But the 754 Semprons were eunuchs none-the-less