AMD Semperon v Intel Celeron

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
My Celeron D 310 (2.13 GHz) was motherboard-limited to 3.6 GHz. That's a 69% overclock, and it would have gone higher on a decent motherboard instead of a cheap ECS with no AGP/PCI locks. Does this make it better than the Sempron? :roll: Do you understand how silly it is to measure a processor's merit based on percent overclock?

There are Mobile Celerons of the 1.5 to 1.6GHz flavor that will overclock 100% to 3.0 and 3.2GHz I guess these must be the uber cpu champions?
 
I just looked at the highest OC's on this website http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59753
You are probably right though, 3Ghz and above is proably a higher than the average person should expect, but I had my Opteron 165 running @ 3.2 max and 3.1 stable. And in my experience it is a little harder to OC dual core cpu's, plus I did it on air cooling. SO, the sempron should run cooler than my dual core opty did. I am sorry I did not reply earlier, but there is really no need for the childish animations, you know some people are busy and may not have access to a computer all the time. Which also explains why I did not have a ton of time to search for more sources of Palermo overclocking. But I have read on some other forums of people breaking 3.0 with the Palermo core Sempron 64 (which maybe I should have said 64 before). Alas I am out of time, I have to run. If I am wrong please correct me, but in my opinion, regardless of max air OC, the sempron would be a better buy simply because it would be faster than an equally priced celery. If we could just leave super pi out of this and use some real world numbers that would be great.

Edit: Sempron 64 is basically a venice core, they are known to break 3ghz on a regular basis on air cooling all the way from 1.8ghz. So, why would one @ 1.6 ghz break 3ghz other than being motherboard limited. Also, the least expensive Celeron D 356 I could find was around $70, while the Sempron 64 2800 I can find for $40 on newegg, I was unable to find the Celeron D 356 on newegg, and to be fair the 355 was $78 on newegg so the 356 should cost more. But the Sempron closer to the price range of the Celeron is the Sempron (64) 3400 Palermo core costing $69.99 on newegg. Any thoughts? PS: I don't mind people proving me wrong, but just try to be polite when you do it, and act like an adult, I would appreciate it.

Thanks
wes
 
it doesn't make it any better, just makes it a better overclocker. Just like the FX 60 is not a good overclocker, because it is already close to the max of the architecture, while the venice 3000 is a great overclocker. I think that is what he was trying to say by comparing the overclockability of the cpu's, not that it makes one better than another, just one a better overclocker. Unless I am wrong about what he typed, since I am going off of memory.
 
What I was talking about; If the sempron is better on stock and (in many cases) it OCs by better percentage, it will still perform better. Most people STILL get schocked by GHz figures and forget that a 4GHz celeronD performs no better than a 2.8GHz Sempron.

STOP THINKING GIGAHERTZ, please
 
pi1mgu3.jpg


http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=127821

Not a better time, but it's just a 2Ghz clock on (really) cheap mobo and cheap memo :wink:
 
I just looked at the highest OC's on this website http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59753
You are probably right though, 3Ghz and above is proably a higher than the average person should expect, but I had my Opteron 165 running @ 3.2 max and 3.1 stable. And in my experience it is a little harder to OC dual core cpu's, plus I did it on air cooling. SO, the sempron should run cooler than my dual core opty did. I am sorry I did not reply earlier, but there is really no need for the childish animations, you know some people are busy and may not have access to a computer all the time. Which also explains why I did not have a ton of time to search for more sources of Palermo overclocking. But I have read on some other forums of people breaking 3.0 with the Palermo core Sempron 64 (which maybe I should have said 64 before). Alas I am out of time, I have to run. If I am wrong please correct me, but in my opinion, regardless of max air OC, the sempron would be a better buy simply because it would be faster than an equally priced celery. If we could just leave super pi out of this and use some real world numbers that would be great.

Edit: Sempron 64 is basically a venice core, they are known to break 3ghz on a regular basis on air cooling all the way from 1.8ghz. So, why would one @ 1.6 ghz break 3ghz other than being motherboard limited. Also, the least expensive Celeron D 356 I could find was around $70, while the Sempron 64 2800 I can find for $40 on newegg, I was unable to find the Celeron D 356 on newegg, and to be fair the 355 was $78 on newegg so the 356 should cost more. But the Sempron closer to the price range of the Celeron is the Sempron (64) 3400 Palermo core costing $69.99 on newegg. Any thoughts? PS: I don't mind people proving me wrong, but just try to be polite when you do it, and act like an adult, I would appreciate it.

Thanks
wes
Click to expand...
1.It's all about the multilplier. With an 8x multi(2800+), 3GHz is highly unlikely, needing a 375HT or more.

2.What childish animations?

3.I never mentioned Super Pi.

4. I wasn't impolite, just because you didn't like me calling for links to 3GHz+? I acted in an adult manner, it's not like i called you names or anything. I don't just call people noob, or BS'er, etc., because they are wrong, or mistaken. I disagreed and asked for links(mature). :wink:
 
The list you linked is for world-record holders. I'm sure that 2800 palermo is on water if not phase change/cascade. That's as likely a typical overclock as the Celeron D 356 they have listed running at an unholy 6.66GHz. :twisted: f

Nice opteron o/c btw. It's very rare to see one go that high on air. I usually see them running around 2.6-2.7 GHz. Congrats!

What I was talking about; If the sempron is better on stock and (in many cases) it OCs by better percentage, it will still perform better. Most people STILL get schocked by GHz figures and forget that a 4GHz celeronD performs no better than a 2.8GHz Sempron.

STOP THINKING GIGAHERTZ, please
Click to expand...

Sorry for misreading. :wink:

The only true way to find out how good this Celeron D performs it to do a proper review on one of these chips, but I dont think that'll be happening anytime soon, according to an email I got from Jared Walton at Anandtech, basically telling me they weren't interested in buying a Celeron D 356 just to review an old netburst (Hey James, maybe if you lend your CPU to Anandtech, they'll do a review, b/c it sounded like they didn't want to BUY one in order to test it---Intel is not giving out cheap Celeron Ds to test when they want Conroe in the lime light). It should be noted that Tom's and Xbit didn't even bother replying back to my email request.
 
True. There are many reviews comparing celeronDs and semprons but they are all pretty old (2004-2005) and show only the first celeronDs and mostly socket 754 Semprons. On the other hand, when they review AM2 Semprons od newer CeleronDs, they put in the review only Athlons and Pentium4s so you seldom have the chance to see them head to head. However, there is some useful info.
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1445_1.html
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3398581

And here's my favorite, although it only touches the 3100+ S745 Sempron and 2.8G CeleronD, it is pretty thorough and has a nice spectrum of comparision.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/510-1/amd-sempron-vs-intel-celeron-d.html
 
to Tanker I think, not all of that was directed at you if I remember correctly. I just used you to reply to a couple of people, I didn't make it clear enough.

The super pi stuff is to the OP, not you.

The "childish animations" as I said, was the guy rolling his eyes, I take it back I just wasn't really in to good of a mood at the time. Sorry.

But back to the point. I provided you that one link which shows they are capable of it, and with a good board, you can get the HT to 375. I know that I have done it on mulitple boards. I have a Ultra D which hit 400 stable. But other than that,
 
to Tanker I think, not all of that was directed at you if I remember correctly. I just used you to reply to a couple of people, I didn't make it clear enough.

The super pi stuff is to the OP, not you.

The "childish animations" as I said, was the guy rolling his eyes, I take it back I just wasn't really in to good of a mood at the time. Sorry.

But back to the point. I provided you that one link which shows they are capable of it, and with a good board, you can get the HT to 375. I know that I have done it on mulitple boards. I have a Ultra D which hit 400 stable. But other than that,
Click to expand...
Wow...i'm impressed. :wink: That poor board must have been throwing off some brutal heat. Was the setup water-cooled?I agree (at stock speeds)Semprons are the better chip, but for the average stock-cooled setup, Celerons do overclock very well, which probably gives them the nod...at least in many apps..not games. As far as Super-Pi, OP's 32s is fast, as K8 architecture is generally faster in Super-Pi than Netburst architecture. :)
 
Yeah, it was getting a little warm, but I was using a stock cooler on the chipset and a 90mm on the CPU. I tried a water cooling setup which was very efficient, but it did not really make a difference in the overclock other than heat. So, I removed it just for simplicity. I don't have any verification for it, just thought I would head you off. Yeah, 32 is fast for a netburst based cpu, I would assume due to the long pipeline, but I still don't think that super pi should be used for any type of real world means of comparing CPU performance over all.
 
AGREE! A Sempron 2800+ does the 1M in roughly 56 sec while a 2.67 CeleronD is slightly less than twice that value. What does it mean?! Exactly that, nothing more :lol:
There are a lot of meaningful comparisions such as encoding,rendering, compressing, FPS, bandwidth etc.
 
My understanding of the Celeron/Sempron CPUs (as explained to me by an Intel employee) is that they are essentially Intel's/AMD's previous generation of CPUs just slightly updated. A Celeron D is basically a P4 and a Sempron 64 is basically a Athlon 64. Since it's pretty well excepted that AMD had the performance edge until C2D, a Sempron should outperform a Celeron.
 
My understanding of the Celeron/Sempron CPUs (as explained to me by an Intel employee) is that they are essentially Intel's/AMD's previous generation of CPUs just slightly updated. A Celeron D is basically a P4 and a Sempron 64 is basically a Athlon 64. Since it's pretty well excepted that AMD had the performance edge until C2D, a Sempron should outperform a Celeron.
Click to expand...
Don't take for granted everything you hear around, read some reviews so you get a better understanding, compare performance with performance, not Intel's GHz with AMD's:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/510-1/amd-sempron-vs-intel-celeron-d.html
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1445_1.html
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3398581
 
And here are my favorite Cedermill Celeron D articles:

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/137/137950_2.shtml

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/celeron512k-2.htm

The second one has some serious typos in the comparison charts (the first chart lists a pentium D 355, that should be Celeron D 355, and in the second chart it should be Celeron D 356 performance, one at 4.15GHz and the other at 5GHz). These are the only two reviews of the Celeron D 356. There is one more review of the Celron D 356, and that was from Mad Shrimps where it compared a Celeron D 356 to a Pentium D 805, but the 356 was more of an after thought, and it only had one benchmark: 3Dmark 2003, and those results were so messed up, they're not even comparable to other 3dmark 2003 tests, so it pretty much sucked for a review. Extreme systems also has a couple good threads on the D 356:

Here is the first one: 5GHz with stock cooler and a voltage bump:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=88570

And the second one: 5GH with aftermarket air cooler and stock voltage (a voltage bump brings it up to 5.4GHz):

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102033&highlight=celeron+356

Like I said earlier, a clear, systematic review of the Celeron D 356 by a credited website such as Tom's, Anandtech, or Xbit, would put a lot of this Celeron D ignorance to rest. Until that time, people will continue to mistakenly group the Cedermill Celerons with the Prescotts, giving them a bad name they clearly don't deserve. Since a review will likely never happen, it's sad to see this excellent chip sink into obscurity. It is arguably the best single core CPU out there. Being hard to find and priced within $10 of the Pentium D 805 isn't helping it win customers either. The Last netburst CPU, the Celeron D 360 running at 3.6GHz, should be released before the end of the year, and the Celeron D 356/352 are supposed to take a 10% price cut, meaning the cheapest Ceder MIll celeron will be around $63 for a retail boxed unit. I might actually consider buying one then.
 
Of course 5GHz is no game, and most probably, at these levels of OC, a celeron may perform better than a sempron but a PROPER shows comparision to a broad range of CPUs and most importan; real life performance. With all the respect I have for benchmarking software, personally, I never consider PC mark values or 3D mark ratings or Super PI values as a healthy basis of comparision. How fast does it render, how good is at multitasking; thet's what I mind and you don't get the answers by those values.
Intel's 65nm process, coupled with it's superior technology makes it superior in overclocking but people buy a PC to work or play on it for some time; can you find me one that kept his/her celeron on 4.5G for a whole month or two. Records are one thing and performane is another one and I don't think 4G+ is something long-term stable.
 
Is a Celeron D Dual core? if not why the FU@# call it a Celeron D? doesnt D stand for Dual Core?
Click to expand...

The D is for desktop and the M is for mobile in the celeron line. The D is based on the Pentium 4 and the M is based on the Pentium M. Which makes a 1.6ghz celeron M alot faster than a 1.6 ghz celeron D.
 
Maybe Intel will get like ATI/NVidia and have a

CELERON D DUAL XTX XT PE GTO GT ULTRA

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that would be hot.
-cm

and it would probably be thier mid-end model. 😀
 
And here are my favorite Cedermill Celeron D articles:

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/137/137950_2.shtml

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/celeron512k-2.htm

The second one has some serious typos in the comparison charts (the first chart lists a pentium D 355, that should be Celeron D 355, and in the second chart it should be Celeron D 356 performance, one at 4.15GHz and the other at 5GHz). These are the only two reviews of the Celeron D 356. There is one more review of the Celron D 356, and that was from Mad Shrimps where it compared a Celeron D 356 to a Pentium D 805, but the 356 was more of an after thought, and it only had one benchmark: 3Dmark 2003, and those results were so messed up, they're not even comparable to other 3dmark 2003 tests, so it pretty much sucked for a review. Extreme systems also has a couple good threads on the D 356:

Here is the first one: 5GHz with stock cooler and a voltage bump:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=88570

And the second one: 5GH with aftermarket air cooler and stock voltage (a voltage bump brings it up to 5.4GHz):

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102033&highlight=celeron+356

Like I said earlier, a clear, systematic review of the Celeron D 356 by a credited website such as Tom's, Anandtech, or Xbit, would put a lot of this Celeron D ignorance to rest. Until that time, people will continue to mistakenly group the Cedermill Celerons with the Prescotts, giving them a bad name they clearly don't deserve. Since a review will likely never happen, it's sad to see this excellent chip sink into obscurity. It is arguably the best single core CPU out there. Being hard to find and priced within $10 of the Pentium D 805 isn't helping it win customers either. The Last netburst CPU, the Celeron D 360 running at 3.6GHz, should be released before the end of the year, and the Celeron D 356/352 are supposed to take a 10% price cut, meaning the cheapest Ceder MIll celeron will be around $63 for a retail boxed unit. I might actually consider buying one then.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is. The performance you're getting with it would be considered quite awesome 1-2 years ago. If nobody buys it, their loss. You did, and it's impressed you...that's all that really matters in the end. I know i would have fun overclocking it, but then again i like overclocking every CPU. :wink: I still mess around overclocking old PII's and Mendocino Celerons. I like to push everything to the limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom