Intel Celeron M 410 or AMD Sempron 3200+ Please Help

[m25]

BTW, I'm willing to benchmark my own mobile Sempron budget laptop if you or someone else will benchmark a Celeron M 400 series or Core Solo laptop. Mine uses a Sempron 3000+ at 1.8 GHz. Yes, believe it or not, I own a laptop that uses an AMD CPU. If my laptop outperfoms the Celeron M 400 series or Core Solo, I'll take back everything I've said.

Can arrange it for a Core Duo, all single threaded apps, will it be the same as a Core Solo? I bet the core would win out but a celeron is not the same, they've always been so crippled so we have to find a celeron M410 owner :lol:
It's already plenty of Conroe VS FX benchmarks but you can hardly manage to find any laptop :x

 

[m25]

I agree. Intel should toss the Celeron name just like how AMD did to the Duron. That is why i couldnt decide whether to get a Celeron or a Sempron. If the 410 is based on the 65nm process just like the Core 2 Duo's than it should be pretty good (i think). Since Celerons are usually based on the newest chipsets from Intel but only slower FSB, lower cache and slower clock speed. Errrrr.... I come to full circle. Sucks that no site benchmarks low end processors. [what gets me is that i cant find a site that benchmarks the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. I mean i dont have the money to get the E6600.]

8O What are you exactly looking for :?: :!:
is it a laptop or desktop

 

[jaguarskx]

8O What are you exactly looking for :?: :!:
is it a laptop or desktop

Hello i am looking for a budget laptop and have narrowed it down to two. One having the :

Intel Celeron M 410 (1.46GHz, 533MHZ FSB, 1MB Cache)

and one with:

AMD Sempron M 3200+ (1.8GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 512KB Cache)

 

[kukito]

Off topic, but here are some benchmarks for the E6300.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=1

Edit: this post was a reply to yiushock. Sorry.

 

[kukito]

Can arrange it for a Core Duo, all single threaded apps, will it be the same as a Core Solo? I bet the core would win out but a celeron is not the same, they've always been so crippled so we have to find a celeron M410 owner :lol:
It's already plenty of Conroe VS FX benchmarks but you can hardly manage to find any laptop :x

Maybe if your friend can disable one core in BIOS. What's the clock speed of your friend's Core Duo? Maybe we can extrapolate from that. 😉 But it really wouldn't be fair to compare a Sempron to a Core Duo. I was trying to run PCMark but it wouldn't work. It insisted I needed Media Player 10 even though I had 11. I rolled the installation back to 9, updated to 10, reinstalled and it still wouldn't work. 🙁 If you'll give me links to benchmarking software I'll go ahead and run them. I have Nero 7, 7-Zip, Office, iTunes, WMP 10, 9 or 11. I can also download a copy of DVD Shrink, to be used for strictly legitimate benchmarking, of course.

I have to say that I'm mostly satisfied with my $600 Acer. It's a bit slow but you get what you pay for. I can run all my Office apps, the browsers, etc. It's very important to up the memory to a minimum of 1 GB. They still sell some laptops with 256 MB. Windows XP crawls.

 

[yiushock]

OK Pop Question.... 10 Seconds, choose Intel Celeron M 410 or AMD Sempron M 3200+ and give a reason.

 

[crow_smiling]

I bet the core would win out but a celeron is not the same, they've always been so crippled so we have to find a celeron M410 owner.

The Celeron M has never been seriously crippled versus the Pentium M for performance. It’s been crippled in that it doesn’t support Speedstep, which is more of an issue for laptops.
Celeron desktops have mainly been crippled with one glorious exception, although I don’t know how the mobile Celeron chips compare to mobile Pentium chips.

If using a Core Duo to stand in for a Celeron 4xx for benchmarking, bare in mind that the former typically has a FSB of 667 versus 533 for the later.
You should be able to make any application single threaded by setting its affinity so that it only uses one CPU.

 

[NightlySputnik]

As a rule of thumb, for the same core and clock, a celeron is 60-70% of a Pentium while Semprons are as much as 90-95% of an Athlon. So multiplying all the results by the best 0.7 and then by (1.46/1.7) and the Athlon with the worst 0.9 gives you these (ALWAYS RAUGH) data
Halo : Combat Evolved - 1024 x 768
Sempron 3200+ 1.8G 20.8
Celeron M400 1.46G 14.5

WRONG! What you say is true about CeleronD compare to PentiumD on the desktop side. But when you compare CeleronM and PentiumM, the performances differences is mostly less than 5-10% on equal clock. In this case think of it like a Banias without SpeedStep. It'll consume more, (which is less battery time) but it'll perform quite well.

I personally own a laptop (nothing fancy, only for when traveling mostly) with a CeleronM 370 (1,5GHz. 400mhz fsb, 1MB L2, 65nm) and the only thing against I have against it is it's gaming performances. That was to be expected tough with an embedded i910 Intel VPU. But when doing any cpu encoding (Compressing my DVD collection and some MP3 for on the road) it usually comes to within 20-40% of my Northwood P4 at 3,0Ghz, 800mhz fsb, which is quite good considering the 100% increase in clock speed, both fsb and internal clock. I did some timing to compare. And everybody knows that encoding isn't exactly Intel mobile line strengh up to Yonah (Core Duo) and especially upcoming MEROM (Core2Duo).

Plus, whenever I want battery time, I can manually reduce my cpu speed to 600MHZ which give my about 50% (didn't check, but's that what I feel) more time. That's mostly for web browsing in internet coffee shop. This is through a utility on my launch bar, but it does the job in my case.

But, in this cas, considering at this point that both mobile lines are mostly equal on a clock-for-clock basis, I'd personally go with the Sempron. Even more if Sempron mobile line is 64-bit. I'm not sure about that one tough.

If you need battery life, you should also consider the manufacturers battery include with the laptop you'll purchased. I think it has more impact than the cpu itself, especially since both cpu probably consume pretty much comparable amount of energy. Get one laptop with at least a 4500mah rating battery (correct me somebody if I'm wrong) and the more the better. My laptop had a really weak (2300mah) battery which could barely give me 60 minutes heavy cpu intensive time or 1h30 minutes web browsing. I changed it (would have saved that by buying the more expensive model, got screwed on that one :x ) and I now easily get over 2 hours intensive usage and 3h30 more web browsing.

My 2 cents!

 

[yiushock]

Battery Life shouldnt be a problem for me since i will mostly have the laptop plugged in. Also even if i don't, where i work, there will always be an outlet nearby. Plus where i live i dont have any WiFi spots so there is really no point for me to go with just the battery.

 

[NightlySputnik]

Well, in this case go with the Sempron. Like I said before, both Dothan (the core on which the Celeron M you want is based) and A64Mobile perform about the same on a clock-for-clock basis. With the 333 mhz (or so) difference betwen both cpu, Sempron will mostly perform better in over 80% what you'll throw at it. :lol:

If you would have more money, I'd tell you to wait 2 more months to get a Core2Duo mobile (MEROM core) based laptop :twisted: . It will just "kill" any of these two cpu and anything AMD has to offer on the mobile side at the time, including the dual-core Turion64, only by not has much as the one on the desktop front because of bandwidth limitation (fsb at 667 mhz for MEROM compare to 1066 for the CONROE version 🙁 ). But with a limited budget, Sempron Mobile is probably your best choice 8) .

My 2 cents!

 

[djkrypplephite]

The Yonah core is better than any sempr0n. Enough said. Always has been, always will be. The only difference between the Celerons and Core based on Yonah is that the Celerons have half the cache, so your battery life and performance isn't as good as it owuld be. It still outperforms and outlives a sempr0n though.

 

[m25]

Maybe if your friend can disable one core in BIOS. What's the clock speed of your friend's Core Duo? Maybe we can extrapolate from that. 😉 But it really wouldn't be fair to compare a Sempron to a Core Duo. I was trying to run PCMark but it wouldn't work. It insisted I needed Media Player 10 even though I had 11. I rolled the installation back to 9, updated to 10, reinstalled and it still wouldn't work. 🙁 If you'll give me links to benchmarking software I'll go ahead and run them. I have Nero 7, 7-Zip, Office, iTunes, WMP 10, 9 or 11. I can also download a copy of DVD Shrink, to be used for strictly legitimate benchmarking, of course.

I have to say that I'm mostly satisfied with my $600 Acer. It's a bit slow but you get what you pay for. I can run all my Office apps, the browsers, etc. It's very important to up the memory to a minimum of 1 GB. They still sell some laptops with 256 MB. Windows XP crawls.

Hey, don't ask so much from it; it's a laptop. I hate them because they deform your posture and never perform better than a half-that-price desktop.
Windows XP is crap and I think Vista will be even worse; It will send th COMFORTABLE MINIMUM from 1 to 2GB and the only explanation is the stupid fancy graphics, BLAH!
You could download Blender (the 3D app I use for modelling and rendering). It's free and I can also send you a sample scene. Then we have SuperPI but I guess it's multithreaded so it depends on the possibility to really disable one core. Is 7-Zip multithreaded? I have WMP10.
I also suggest to let out all the synthetic benchmarks of the various Sandra PCMark etc.

 

[m25]

He also asked for the E6300 and 6400 prices that's why.

 

[kukito]

Well, in this case go with the Sempron. Like I said before, both Dothan (the core on which the Celeron M you want is based) and A64Mobile perform about the same on a clock-for-clock basis.

Read the thread! It had already been established earlier that the Celeron M 400 series is based on the Yonah core, not Dothan. :roll:

Celeron Yonah-1024

According to Wikipedia, this particular Celeron M "is probably the last Intel budget processor to use the "Celeron" name." Thank God!!

 

[NightlySputnik]

Well, in this case go with the Sempron. Like I said before, both Dothan (the core on which the Celeron M you want is based) and A64Mobile perform about the same on a clock-for-clock basis.

Read the thread! It had already been established earlier that the Celeron M 400 series is based on the Yonah core, not Dothan. :roll:

Celeron Yonah-1024

According to Wikipedia, this particular Celeron M "is probably the last Intel budget processor to use the "Celeron" name." Thank God!!

Well, even so it doesn't change a thing but for encoding. Yonah have slightly reinforced SSE unit which give better encoding result. But again, nothing to get to the level of a MEROM based laptop. So basicly, this Celeron is mostly a Dothan with half-the cache. Still no speedstep also!

Actually, Yonah have a real advantage over Dothan only with application that use multithreading. But since this Celeron use only one core, there isn't much difference in most case. Go check this test where you can see Dothan surpassing Yonah in a lot of application that don't rely on multithreading: Turion X2 So the same should stay true about Celeron version except for the faster fsb.

I maintain what I said. The frequency difference is too high for this Celeron to catch-up with the Sempron mentionned above. I'd personally go with a higher frequency cpu but in the choices given above, Sempron deserve the win!

My 2 cents!