Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options. The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional.
|Date Added:||18 May 2008|
|File Size:||41.32 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
AMD Sempron + GHz (SDAIAA3CW) Processor | eBay
The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D. 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. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge. Now we turn semprln actual performance using real applications.
In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved memory support.
The hard drives were zmd prior to each major benchmark run. We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3.
The Ajd soundly outpaces the Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still. 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. The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them.
AMD Sempron 3400+
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 use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. In the real world, application optimizations can vary widely. 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.
In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D. 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.
Also, we used the rundll 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. We used Adobe After Effects 6. This Socket CPU runs 34400 3.
The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster. We can say this, though: In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD ammd all over Intel. All make fairly heavy use of the processor semprin memory subsystem. PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive.
The story is the same in LightWave rendering. There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:. Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1.