|
you should really be considering the socket 754 semprons and not the Socket A semprons. there is no reason anymore to make a new build on Socket A imo. (other than a few specific circumstances..)
'which is better' is not a question which can be answered across the board they are far too complex.
even 'which is faster' does not have an 100% clear answer- there are several variables which affect how fast they are (architechture, clock speed, cache, fsb, memory controller, 64-bit).. the fastest Celeron D would be faster than the slowest Sempron and vice-versa. if u want to see the final effect you would have to look at several different benchmarks (as a high clock speed (ghz) might have a large impact on one thing, whereas cache is more important on another etc) for the CPU ranges..
now i assume u want to get the best value, so u should be looking at the best speed for your $..
in basic terms i'll say from all my personal reading etc etc that your best bet would be a 2600+ Socket 754 sempron.
generally, (unless theres a massive obvious undeniable gap in performance), many people will disagree upon what is best [they may for example have grown up with Intel as the major CPU and so believe with no basis in fact that only it is able to produce a good stable CPU and so only suggest these, or they may detest the corporate prevelance of intel and so always lean towards AMD.. this is made worse by the fact that CPU 'A' can outperform CPU 'B' in task one, but CPU 'B' can outperform CPU 'A' in task two.], so ultimately u should make up your own mind.. after getting educated a little.
there are other differences in CPUs other than speed, which are a lot easier to compare;
Socket A sempron:
- average power consumption (which relates directly to how big of a PSU u need, and how much your electricity bill is)
- average heat output (relates to required noise level to cool it, expense to cool, how hot it makes your room etc)
- speedstep: no (slows down cpu when not in use, reducing power and heat output when idle)
- 64-bit: no *
- memory controller on chip: no
- 166mhz FSB (not 133!)
- 128kb L1 cache, 256KB L2 cache
Socket 754 sempron:
- low power consumption
- low heat output
- speedstep: yes
- 64-bit: no
- memory controller on chip: yes
- FSB on chip (has a memory controller on the CPU, for simplicity's sake u could say it was 200mhz FSB)
- 128kb L1 Cache, 256kb L2 Cache (other than the 2600+ which has 128kb L2 cache)**
Celeron D:
- high power consumption
- high heat output
- speedstep: no (? correct me if wrong!)
- 64-bit: yes (or its coming soon)
- memory controller on chip: no
- 133mhz FSB
- 32kb (?) L1 cache, 256KB L2 cache
*(windows XP 64 bit is just in the process of being released.. in order to run this u will need a CPU which can support 64-bit extensions. all programs will *eventually* go this way but it will take a while and all software will likely be available in 32bit after u replace this computer. whats the point of 64-bit? supposedly faster, currently theres little in it..sometimes its slower, generally its a little faster.)
**with the memory controller on chip, the speed is not so sensitive to the amount of cache, which is why i suggest the 2600+ rather than the only-slightly-more-expensive 2800+
if u cannot easily decide which is best out of all the [celeron d vs sA sempron vs s754 sempron] on speed per $ only terms, then compare the architechtures (as above) to chose which CPU type u find best and then choosing which one should be much more simple; just how much money u want to spend for performance.
NB: do not rely only on speed ratings! a 2600+ socket A sempron wont be as fast as a 2600+ socket 754 sempron [the two sockets of semprons are basically totally different CPUs; sA is based on AthlonXP, s754 is based on Athlon64], and a 2800+ socket 754 sempron is only a little faster than that (as it is the same clock speed, just more cache). and u haven't even started comparing them with Celeron D's!. so use google and find some benchmarks. note the socket for semprons!
[things are confusing now huh!?]
|