What's a better processor?

[manlymatt83]

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ (1995.35-MHz 686-class CPU)

Or AMD Sempron 2600

I think I should explain that this is for a dedicated server.

They are offering those two configurations to me for the same price.

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ (1995.35-MHz 686-class CPU) with 512 MB RAM
or:
Sempron 2600 64 bit with 1024 MB RAM

 

[f4phantom2500]

probably the sempron...be more specific on the specs of them. what cores are they?

edit: if they're both socket a probably the athlon

 

[lyssword]

athlon xp, unless sempron is 64 bit it's sucky

 

[manlymatt83]

I can either get:

CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ (1995.35-MHz 686-class CPU)
Or a Sempron 64 BIT 2600

Which one?

 

[manlymatt83]

How about this... I can either get:

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ (1995.35-MHz 686-class CPU) with 512 MB RAM

or:
Sempron 2600 64 bit with 1024 MB RAM

For the same price. Which is the better box?

 

[Idontcare]

If the box is going to be running WinXP or Vista then I would expect the one with 1GB of ram to outperform the one with 0.5GB of ram. Your performance at that point will be gated by the speed (latency) of the hard-drives more than the speed of the CPUs (which will be idling away many more of their cycles on the 512MB box).

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
How about this... I can either get:

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ (1995.35-MHz 686-class CPU) with 512 MB RAM

or:
Sempron 2600 64 bit with 1024 MB RAM

For the same price. Which is the better box?

I'd get the sempron over the Althon XP even it if wasn't 64bit. The additional ram will also be helpful.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
If the box is going to be running WinXP or Vista then I would expect the one with 1GB of ram to outperform the one with 0.5GB of ram. Your performance at that point will be gated by the speed (latency) of the hard-drives more than the speed of the CPUs (which will be idling away many more of their cycles on the 512MB box).

The OS will be FreeBSD

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: stevty2889

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
How about this... I can either get:

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ (1995.35-MHz 686-class CPU) with 512 MB RAM

or:
Sempron 2600 64 bit with 1024 MB RAM

For the same price. Which is the better box?

I'd get the sempron over the Althon XP even it if wasn't 64bit. The additional ram will also be helpful.

You'd get a Sempron 2600 over the Athlon XP? Aren't the Sempron's less than the Athlon?

 

[touchmyichi]

If you're getting a socket A you might as well get a Barton (2500+/3200+ are the most widely available ones). I doubt there would be much of a discrepancy in the price, they are cheap processors. They do have pretty good oc'ing potential and the 512 cache really helps. Hit up the FS/T forum and you'll probably be able to get one for a really good price.

On another note though, older A64 procs are about the same price as XP's... If this is for a main system you might as well just go that route.

 

[manlymatt83]

I think I should explain that this is for a dedicated server.

They are offering those two configurations to me for the same price.

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ (1995.35-MHz 686-class CPU) with 512 MB RAM
or:
Sempron 2600 64 bit with 1024 MB RAM

 

[lyssword]

Ok 64 bit is a better architeture because of integrated memory controller. If it was non-64 bit it would basicaly be a crippled xp chip. Generates less heat too, because it's suppose to be 90nm vs 130nm. Get the sempron

 

[manlymatt83]

Baiscally the real deal is this.

Right now I have a 512 MB box with an AMD Athlon 2400 XP+ that i'm paying $74/month for. I can either stick with this box, or the company is offering a "special" which is a Sempron 2600 64 bit for $59/month. I can add 512 MB Ram for $10 more a month, so the box would be $69/month. So basically, it'd be $5/month less and I'd have double the RAM.

The negative is i have to set my server up again, but I'm so pissed that they raised their prices recently, that I almost want to do it to get the better box and save $5/month.

 

[Idontcare]

Judging by the numerous replies you received but are not referencing in your responses...I'd say you really really want someone to recommend you go with the Athlon and not the Sempron.

Let me help you: don't get the Sempron.

There, now you can have a clear conscience for ignoring all these other folks who took the time to post in your thread(s).

 

[Amaroque]

Personally, I'd go with the Athlon, and just stick another 512 MB in.

But if ya want my real opinion, your getting ripped off unless your getting an X2, or C2D for that price.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I agree either way, you're getting ripped off. Can't believe they're still using such old boxes and charging an extra $10/month for 512mb of ram is a joke.

What are you using the server for?

 

[grumpyboy]

the 64 bit semprons have a 800 mhz fsb, the xp 2400 runs at 266mhz!
But the xp has twice as much L1 and L2 cache 128/256 k

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
I agree either way, you're getting ripped off. Can't believe they're still using such old boxes and charging an extra $10/month for 512mb of ram is a joke.

What are you using the server for?

Web, Email, DNS, mysql, postgres

They give me a decent deal .... terabyte of bandwidth a month and such

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: grumpyboy
the 64 bit semprons have a 800 mhz fsb, the xp 2400 runs at 266mhz!
But the xp has twice as much L1 and L2 cache 128/256 k

So is it worth "upgrading" from the Athlon I have now to the Sempron (higher fsb, lower cache), taking the hit on the cache to save $5/month and also have double the RAM.

If so, I can go from $74/mo to $69/mo, switch from the Athlon to the Sempron, and double my RAM.

Otherwise, if it won't make a big differnece, I can stick with the $74/mo plan and not have to redeploy my server and all of its contents (which wont' really be a big deal)

 

[grumpyboy]

Yes the Athlon 2400 sucks they should be shot for selling such trash.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: grumpyboy
Yes the Athlon 2400 sucks they should be shot for selling such trash.

The Sempron 2600 is better than the Athlon 2400 XP?

 

[lyssword]

yes it is better http://xtreview.com/review79.htm

it's hard to find direct comparison but I estimate it to be 5-15% better depending on applications, even with lower cache..

 

[myocardia]

People, stop giving this guy incorrect advice. AMD never made a Skt. 754 Sempron 2600: link. A Sempron 2600 is a Skt. A Thoroughbred-based core, with half as much L2 cache as the XP-M 2400, that runs at 1.83 Ghz. Of course, the 2400 XP-M, unless it's overclocked, is not a 2.0 Ghz processor, it's a 1.80 Ghz processor. But still, if you consider that the XP-M has twice the L2 cache, there's no contest, if the two are running at anywhere near the same speed.

 

[grumpyboy]

Im not going to react to the insulting tone of your remark.

Sorry but theres plently of evidence out there...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...ay/sempron-2600_9.html

MD Sempron 2600+ for Socket 754: K8 Architecture Made More Affordable (page 9)

Category: CPU

by Ilya Gavrichenkov

[ 03/04/2005 | 12:03 PM ]

Pages : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Performance

To make our final opinion about AMD?s new inexpensive processor for Socket 754 systems we decided to compare the Sempron 2600+ to the available alternatives. The immediate rival to the Sempron 2600+ for Socket 754 is the older Sempron 2600+ for Socket A and the symmetrical offer from Intel, the Celeron D325, of 2.53GHz frequency and a similar price.

Considering the good overclockability of the Sempron 2600+ for Socket 754, we also tested it overclocked to 2.5GHz. When thus sped up, it competes with midrange processors as well as with the overclocked Celeron D 325. We should confess at the start that our sample of the Celeron D 325 was not the best possible in terms of overclockability. It could only work normally at 3.4GHz, i.e. the FSB frequency was increased from the default 133MHz to 179MHz.

So, we used the following hardware items for our tests of the performance of the new Sempron 2600+:

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: stevty2889

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
How about this... I can either get:

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ (1995.35-MHz 686-class CPU) with 512 MB RAM

or:
Sempron 2600 64 bit with 1024 MB RAM

For the same price. Which is the better box?

I'd get the sempron over the Althon XP even it if wasn't 64bit. The additional ram will also be helpful.

You'd get a Sempron 2600 over the Athlon XP? Aren't the Sempron's less than the Athlon?

The 64bit Sempron is based on the Athlon 64 core, which is a clock for clock faster and more efficient architecture than the Althon XP, and while the sempron does have a smaller cache, in a majority of cases, the sempron will still outperform the Althon XP.