AMD ATLHON XP Vrs Celeron D

[easg]

Which one is better? and Athlon XP or a Celeron D Prescott Socket 478?

[EzyStvy]

The Celeron is similar to AMD Duron. Both are less expensive and not as fast/powerful..

[Alfie]

The XP's would have the upper hand against a Celeron.

[cuog]

generally most of the time when you compare an AMD to and Intel if you are comparing their top of the line aka Athalon vs Pentium they are almost equally matched but when you compare one of the companies higher up chips such as the athlon to the celeron the celeron will perform a little slower and will likely be less durable esspecially if you plan on overclocking

[Panama Red]

The Celeron D is more comparable to the Sempron. Both have 256Mb cache. I did some testing a while back using a Barton 2500 XP, a 2.66 Celeron D and a 2600 Sempron. Using strictly benchmarks the Barton was a much better option. The 512Mb of cache makes a BIG difference in performance.

[easg]

And what is better? more FSB or more Cache memory.

[Panama Red]

You can't compare fsb between Intel and AMD due to different chip architecture. Larger cache is always better, just like with hard drives having a larger cache (buffer) improves performance. If you're trying to decide between an XP and an equivalently rated Celeron D (like a 2800+ Barton XP vs a 335J Celeron D), I'd go with the XP.

[glc]

Isn't a Sempron really a relabeled 266 bus T-bred XP? A Celeron-D is a 533 bus Prescott with 1/4 the cache. The bus on both is based on 133 system FSB.

[easg]

I guess the Celeron D is better than the Sempron, I don`t remember where but I readed a review of that.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by glc Isn't a Sempron really a relabeled 266 bus T-bred XP? A Celeron-D is a 533 bus Prescott with 1/4 the cache. The bus on both is based on 133 system FSB.

Sounds like the performance would be pretty close to each other then.

Cricket

[glc]

Originally Posted by easg I guess the Celeron D is better than the Sempron, I don`t remember where but I readed a review of that.

I wouldn't say that one is better than the other - they are direct competitors and any performance differences will be nominal one way or the other, depending on the benchmarks used and how they are run.

[easg]

http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/749/3/

[Panama Red]

Take a look at this thread. This is the direct comparison I did that I mentioned in my earlier post.

http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.p...ght=comparison

[mb26]

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!?]

[kram 2.0]

I had the option of chosing either Intel Celeron D or AMD Athlon XP at one point - it was for a budget build. I picked the Athlon XP since I was going to use it at stock speeds. The reason being, is that at one point, the Athlon XP was AMD's top of the line CPU. Although the Intel Celeron D in many respects was a giant leap for Intel for a budget CPU, I felt it was a powerhouse against the Sempron but less so against the Athlon XP.

kram

[Panama Red]

Originally Posted by kram8806 ...the Athlon XP was AMD's top of the line CPU. Although the Intel Celeron D in many respects was a giant leap for Intel for a budget CPU, I felt it was a powerhouse against the Sempron but less so against the Athlon XP. kram

Don't think I'd give the D a "powerhouse" advantage over the Socket A Sempron, kram. The equivalent rated Sempron runs benchmarks the same or slightly better than the D. The XP's were designed to compete with the P4's and ran a close second when the Hyperthreading gave the advantage to the P4.

[mb26]

personally i dont think u should compare simply 'equivilant rating' cpus.. there is one reason we all dont get the fastest CPU available- price. therefore i think u should compare equivilant *priced* cpus rather than whatever rating AMD/intel decides to give them..
for example if AMD chose to rename their current '3000+' to '2600+' then it would look awesome against a 2.6ghz celeron.. that doesn't make it any better thou if the price is still the same as it was before.

[Panama Red]

Originally Posted by mb26 personally i dont think u should compare simply 'equivilant rating' cpus.. there is one reason we all dont get the fastest CPU available- price. therefore i think u should compare equivilant *priced* cpus rather than whatever rating AMD/intel decides to give them.. for example if AMD chose to rename their current '3000+' to '2600+' then it would look awesome against a 2.6ghz celeron.. that doesn't make it any better thou if the price is still the same as it was before.

Valid point, mb26. However, if you compare the prices of the two cpu's I refer to you'll find they are within $3 of each other (including freight) in the Retail box.

Sempron 2600+

Celeron D 2.66GHz

[mb26]

good it works then.. i was really speaking generally cuz people often say 'get X cuz its better than Y' even thou X costs more so it obviously should outperform..

and dont forget the s754 sempron 2600+ lol (psst, its better )