Sup, I've been wondering, how do the sempron and XP chips stack up againt one-another. Is sempron superior? The specs look about the same really, fsb, process, voltage, cache, and instruction set all seem about the same. What makes for an overall speed difference, assuming there is a notable one. Thanks.
sempron is a budget processor, the XP is better because the sempron was built to rival and surpass the celeron
I agree with ovrclker. I recently built a box using a Sempron and thought it'd be about as fast as an XP. Sad to say, it wasn't. It's really meant to compete in the CELERON class. But the price is nice if you don't do serious gaming.
Yeah, basically the Sempron is the next Duron, economy-line CPUs. They're not bad for everyday use but AXP's are better, especially those with 512k L2 cache.
Ah, I see, I just wondered as it said "best in class", in some promotion, apparently the XP's aren't in the same class. Cheers
Lol i didnt know this either at xmas i had the choice between a sepron(nt sure what it was) and a xp (3200+)..i chose the xp because it was cheaper and i got the money difference. im glad now
The socket A sempron was basically a Athlon XP T/Bred B (256k cache), so in theory i think it would perform same while the AXP Bartons had more cache and would 0wn semprons.
sempron is simply more budget, but yet xp does cost more in some cases, but xp is better for heavier applications such as gaming and movie watching, but sempron is good for those who do not demand much from their chip, and it doesn't play games that bad either, in some cases sempron 2200s have beaten 2.8ghz p4s. so higher semprons are still pretty good as an alternate to p4s
Wow, that's very impressive actually, a 2200 is like $80 or something. Nice. Is movie watching really that intensive though?
