Is the Sempron a budget line that costs more?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.

At the same time the equivalent Athlon models have been withdrawn.

Someone pointed out that the Sempron costs more than the equivalent Athlon
cpu they replace.

So have we now got a situation where a newly-launched budget line (Sempron)
actaully costs MORE than the equivalent mainstream line (Athlon) of the same
power?

I hope i have got soemthing wromg there!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:55:32 +0100, Aaron R Salp
<nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:

>Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
>detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
>the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.
>
>At the same time the equivalent Athlon models have been withdrawn.
>
>Someone pointed out that the Sempron costs more than the equivalent Athlon
>cpu they replace.
>
>So have we now got a situation where a newly-launched budget line (Sempron)
>actaully costs MORE than the equivalent mainstream line (Athlon) of the same
>power?
>
>I hope i have got soemthing wromg there!

Yes, for the time being you have it right, Sempron is higher
priced. They are expected to o'c higher than the T'Bred B,
on average, since they're desending from Thorton, but
Thorton cores are also cheaper, and AFAIK, all Semprons are
locked, though I could be wrong about that?

I expect that eventually the Semprons will drop in price,
but for the time being anyone building on socket A ought to
snatch up a Barton while they still can.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Aaron R Salp" <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:9566CAB19896617E5@127.0.0.1...
> Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
> detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are
> for
> the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.
>
> At the same time the equivalent Athlon models have been withdrawn.
>
> Someone pointed out that the Sempron costs more than the equivalent Athlon
> cpu they replace.
>
> So have we now got a situation where a newly-launched budget line
> (Sempron)
> actaully costs MORE than the equivalent mainstream line (Athlon) of the
> same
> power?
>
> I hope i have got soemthing wromg there!

It looks about right. The Sempron XP2500 is just about £1 less than an
Athlon XP2500, even though it has half of the L2 cache.

Quite how the S754 Semprons line up against the A64s though, I'm not sure.

JW

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:
> I expect that eventually the Semprons will drop in price,
> but for the time being anyone building on socket A ought to
> snatch up a Barton while they still can.

Agreed. While AMD is officially selling the Semprons to suppliers for
less than the XP line (check their pricing page at amd.com), the high
volume of low-priced Athlon XPs means that they (AXP) are the better buy
for right now. However, once vendors and retailers start paying the
high prices for the Athlon XP labeled chips across the board, consumers
will see a change. Then the Semprons will be the better choice as the
AXP label fades into oblivion and premium prices. Also, it is probably
in AMD's best interests to move the Athlon name solely to its mainstream
and high-performance product lines (doing so makes AMD less vulnerable
to Intel attacks comparing Athlons (XP) to new P4s (EE and the like)).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:

> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
> power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus are
> equivalent:
>
> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>
> [Data taken from page linked above.]
>
> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?

They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wes Newell wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
>
>
>>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
>>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus are
>>equivalent:
>>
>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>>
>>[Data taken from page linked above.]
>>
>>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>
>
> They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
> Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
> with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
> resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
> subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
> Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
> 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
>

Good info and that explains a LOT.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.09.17.00.02.45.857004@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
>
>> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
>> power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
>> are
>> equivalent:
>>
>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>>
>> [Data taken from page linked above.]
>>
>> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>
> They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
> Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
> with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
> resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
> subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
> Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
> 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
>

Good information. It would be a terrible thing to learn after buying one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

>All Semprons are rated
>with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
>resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
>subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
>Athlon rating.

Dear Lord. What a mess.

 

[fishman]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10kkf3ebv68go8e@corp.supernews.com...
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
> >>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
are
> >>equivalent:
> >>
> >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
> >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
> >>
> >>[Data taken from page linked above.]
> >>
> >>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
> >
> >
> > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
> > Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are
rated
> > with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and
the
> > resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF
you
> > subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
> > Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
> > 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
> >
>
> Good info and that explains a LOT.
>

So that makes them even less value for money then!
With computer hardware something new is usually better and often cheaper,
doesn't seem to be the case here.

Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?

 

[Franklin]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

>> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating
>> throughput power, so I don't know if I can take at face value
>> that these two cpus are equivalent:
>>
>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>>
>> [Data taken from page linked above.]
>>
>> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>
> They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of
> benchmarks Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+.
> All Semprons are rated with a set of benchmarks to compare them
> to Celerons clock speeds and the resulting PR number reflects
> that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you subtract 400 from
> every Semprons number, you will get the approximate Athlon
> rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
> 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.


Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier posting

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html

has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this does indeed
give approximately that 400 unit difference in the "+" rating which you
point out.

In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even more than the
corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?

Has anyone compared actual prices?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95676877C99D531E75@127.0.0.1...
> Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating
> >> throughput power, so I don't know if I can take at face value
> >> that these two cpus are equivalent:
> >>
> >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
> >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
> >>
> >> [Data taken from page linked above.]
> >>
> >> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
> >
> > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of
> > benchmarks Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+.
> > All Semprons are rated with a set of benchmarks to compare them
> > to Celerons clock speeds and the resulting PR number reflects
> > that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you subtract 400 from
> > every Semprons number, you will get the approximate Athlon
> > rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
> > 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
>
>
> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier posting
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html
>
> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this does indeed
> give approximately that 400 unit difference in the "+" rating which you
> point out.
>
> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even more than the
> corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
>
> Has anyone compared actual prices?
That is true of the top end semptrons but the 2200 semptron is £31 and
cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang for your buck at the
bottom end of the market

 

[CrackerJack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"hugh pearce" <hwpearce@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:

>> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier
>> posting
>>
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html
>>
>> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this
>> does indeed give approximately that 400 unit difference in the
>> "+" rating which you point out.
>>
>> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even
>> more than the corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
>>
>> Has anyone compared actual prices?
> That is true of the top end semptrons but the 2200 semptron is
> £31 and cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang
> for your buck at the bottom end of the market


How much faster is th sempron 2200+ than a Duron 1600?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"CrackerJack" <binaryblobNOTTHISBIT@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9567B60C91E4C6AD265@130.133.1.4...
> "hugh pearce" <hwpearce@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier
> >> posting
> >>
> >> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html
> >>
> >> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this
> >> does indeed give approximately that 400 unit difference in the
> >> "+" rating which you point out.
> >>
> >> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even
> >> more than the corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
> >>
> >> Has anyone compared actual prices?
> > That is true of the top end semptrons but the 2200 semptron is
> > £31 and cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang
> > for your buck at the bottom end of the market
>
>
> How much faster is th sempron 2200+ than a Duron 1600?
as said earlier its about XP1800 speed Although it may be slightly faster
dur to its higher bus speed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"hugh pearce" <hwpearce@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:

> "Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:95676877C99D531E75@127.0.0.1...
>> Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't know how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in indicating
>> >> throughput power, so I don't know if I can take at face
>> >> value that these two cpus are equivalent:
>> >>
>> >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>> >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>> >>
>> >> [Data taken from page linked above.]
>> >>
>> >> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>> >
>> > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of
>> > benchmarks Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a
>> > 2100+. All Semprons are rated with a set of benchmarks to
>> > compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the resulting PR
>> > number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
>> > subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the
>> > approximate Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would perform
>> > the same as an Athlon 1800+, etc. And you can take that to
>> > the bank.
>>
>>
>> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier
>> posting
>>
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/sempron-01.html
>>
>> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this
>> does indeed give approximately that 400 unit difference in the
>> "+" rating which you point out.
>>
>> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even
>> more than the corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
>>
>> Has anyone compared actual prices?


> That is true of the top end semprons but the 2200 Sempron is
> £31 and cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang
> for your buck at the bottom end of the market


I calculate that the Sempron here in the UK is currently approx 25 percent
more expensive than the equivalent Athlon .


My local PC dealer is doing these prices (inc VAT) on boxed retail cpus:

Sempron 2400+ £49 ($80)
Sempron 2500+ £57
Sempron 2600+ £64

Athlon 2200+ £50
Athlon 2400+ £59
Athlon 2500+ £62
Athlon 2600+ £69

If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon 2200+ (see
earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28 percent more
expensive.

----

My local dealer is a bit expensive because Simply Computers were doing these
Athlon prices (inc VAT) for retail boxed cpu's:

Athlon 2200+ £48
Athlon 2400+ £51
Athlon 2500+ £59
Athlon 2600+ £65

and now that Simply have dropped almost all of those Athlons and they are
selling these:

Sempron 2500+ £53
Sempron 2600+ £59

So at Simply the Sempron 2600+ is £59 and is the equivalent power to the
Athlon 2200+ which is £48, making the Sempron 23 percent more expensive.

----

Maybe the Sempron is showing the premium paid for new processors and soon
the price will tumble?

But surely that new processor pricing model shouldn't be applied to their
Sempron because they are essentially Athlons which have been in production
for some time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:40:22 +0100, Aaron S
<nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:

<snip>

>But surely that new processor pricing model shouldn't be applied to their
>Sempron because they are essentially Athlons which have been in production
>for some time.

New products entering a market are often priced a bit too
high, then price normalizes after demand is less than
anticipated, or lower than production. It is still a bit
odd though, even a lowly Duron 1.6 is going for $48 on
pricewatch, seems like it should've dropped to $38 already.

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:40:22 +0100, Aaron S
> <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >But surely that new processor pricing model shouldn't be applied to their
> >Sempron because they are essentially Athlons which have been in production
> >for some time.
>
> New products entering a market are often priced a bit too
> high, then price normalizes after demand is less than
> anticipated, or lower than production.

What if demand is greater than anticipated or greater than production?

> It is still a bit
> odd though, even a lowly Duron 1.6 is going for $48 on
> pricewatch, seems like it should've dropped to $38 already.

Why? They probably aren't being made any longer. Perhaps soon
the supply of Athlon XP chips might start dwindling?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon 2200+ (see
> earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28 percent more
> expensive.

Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB, whereas
the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it quite enough
of a boost to justify its higher price, but the real-world PR rating
difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Fishman wrote:

> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10kkf3ebv68go8e@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
>>>>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
>
> are
>
>>>>equivalent:
>>>>
>>>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>>>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>>>>
>>>>[Data taken from page linked above.]
>>>>
>>>>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>>>
>>>
>>>They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
>>>Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are
>
> rated
>
>>>with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and
>
> the
>
>>>resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF
>
> you
>
>>>subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
>>>Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
>>>1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
>>>
>>
>>Good info and that explains a LOT.
>>
>
>
> So that makes them even less value for money then!

True, but it explains why I was having such a hard time making sense of the
new numbering scheme.

> With computer hardware something new is usually better and often cheaper,
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

From their vantage point it is because the Sempron replaces the Duron.

> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?

AMD has always been in price trouble.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> > kony wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, and the XP 2500+ costs more today than it did a year ago.
>
> Maybe they can't produce the low-end chips fast enough because they've
> given over much of their production capacity to the 64-bit chips. The
> tide raises all boats, so to speak.
>
> But I am not an economist.

But this has never happened before that a PC CPU is more expensive than
it was a year ago AFAIK.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Lachoneus wrote:
>> If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon
>> 2200+ (see earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28
>> percent more expensive.
>
> Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB,
> whereas the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it
> quite enough of a boost to justify its higher price, but the
> real-world PR rating difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.

FWIW, the slowest 256KB L2, 166MHz FSB Athlon XP was the 2600 at 2083MHz.
The highest Sempron (absolutely identical to the 256KB L2, 166MHz Athlon
XPs), the 2800, has a speed of 2000MHz, which pretty much exactly equates to
a 2500 (if it esisted with the 256/166 spec) under the old scheme. So in
this particular case the rating on the Sempron is very close to 300 points
too high.

At the lower end, we have the Sempron 2200 at 1500MHz. 1500MHz would put you
at an 1800 rating with a 256/100 config, ~1750 (yeah, it's backwards) with a
256/133 config, ~1950 with a 512/100 config, and ~1950 with a 512/133
config. So it looks as though at this speed, AMD thinks that the bus speed
has very little impact on the performance of the CPU, so a 256/166 part at
1500MHz would be somewhere around 1850 rating or so at the most. This means
the Sempron is overrated by about 350 points. Now, there is some variation
at each speed, due to the requirements that the speed must be a half-integer
multiple of the bus speed (hence why the 133MHz FSB part is "slower" than
the 100MHz FSB part at 1500MHz). However, I would say that overall, the
Sempron is over-rated by something in the range of 300 to 350 points.

As for the prices in New Zealand (in order from cheapest to most expensive,
skipping those where the lower rated part is more expensive, and including
the two closest-in-price Athlon XP chips):

Sempron 2400+: $106
XP 2000+: $100
XP 2200+: $116
Should be XP 2100+ at ~$108 (-2%)

Sempron 2500+: $124
XP 2200+: $116
XP 2400+: $133
Should be XP 2200+ at $116 (+7%)

Sempron 2600+: $145
XP 2400+: $133
XP 2500+: $148
Should be XP 2300+ at ~$125 (+16%)

Sempron 2800+: $187
XP 2600+: $155
XP 2700+: $190
Should be XP 2500+ at $148 (+26%)

So, the Sempron 2400+ is priced "about right". However, the 2500, 2600, and
2800 Semprons are clearly overpriced, coming close to the price of an Athlon
XP with a 100 point lower rating.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
not be an issue for very long.


Michael Brown wrote:

> Lachoneus wrote:
> >> If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon
> >> 2200+ (see earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28
> >> percent more expensive.
> >
> > Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB,
> > whereas the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it
> > quite enough of a boost to justify its higher price, but the
> > real-world PR rating difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.
>
> FWIW, the slowest 256KB L2, 166MHz FSB Athlon XP was the 2600 at 2083MHz.
> The highest Sempron (absolutely identical to the 256KB L2, 166MHz Athlon
> XPs), the 2800, has a speed of 2000MHz, which pretty much exactly equates to
> a 2500 (if it esisted with the 256/166 spec) under the old scheme. So in
> this particular case the rating on the Sempron is very close to 300 points
> too high.
>
> At the lower end, we have the Sempron 2200 at 1500MHz. 1500MHz would put you
> at an 1800 rating with a 256/100 config, ~1750 (yeah, it's backwards) with a
> 256/133 config, ~1950 with a 512/100 config, and ~1950 with a 512/133
> config. So it looks as though at this speed, AMD thinks that the bus speed
> has very little impact on the performance of the CPU, so a 256/166 part at
> 1500MHz would be somewhere around 1850 rating or so at the most. This means
> the Sempron is overrated by about 350 points. Now, there is some variation
> at each speed, due to the requirements that the speed must be a half-integer
> multiple of the bus speed (hence why the 133MHz FSB part is "slower" than
> the 100MHz FSB part at 1500MHz). However, I would say that overall, the
> Sempron is over-rated by something in the range of 300 to 350 points.
>
> As for the prices in New Zealand (in order from cheapest to most expensive,
> skipping those where the lower rated part is more expensive, and including
> the two closest-in-price Athlon XP chips):
>
> Sempron 2400+: $106
> XP 2000+: $100
> XP 2200+: $116
> Should be XP 2100+ at ~$108 (-2%)
>
> Sempron 2500+: $124
> XP 2200+: $116
> XP 2400+: $133
> Should be XP 2200+ at $116 (+7%)
>
> Sempron 2600+: $145
> XP 2400+: $133
> XP 2500+: $148
> Should be XP 2300+ at ~$125 (+16%)
>
> Sempron 2800+: $187
> XP 2600+: $155
> XP 2700+: $190
> Should be XP 2500+ at $148 (+26%)
>
> So, the Sempron 2400+ is priced "about right". However, the 2500, 2600, and
> 2800 Semprons are clearly overpriced, coming close to the price of an Athlon
> XP with a 100 point lower rating.
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
>not be an issue for very long.
>

and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:55:14 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> But this has never happened before that a PC CPU is more expensive than
> it was a year ago AFAIK.

Sure it has. The price of the high end 100MHz (200FSB) Tbirds went up when
the supply got short. Too bad most perople don't realize they really don't
have to have these to upgrade. Here's current pricing on pricewatch.

$94 - Athlon 1.4GHz 266
$149 - Athlon 1.4GHz 200
$42 - Athlon 1.33GHz 266
$56 - Athlon 1.3GHz 200
$43 - Athlon 1.2GHz 266
$57 - Athlon 1.2GHz 200
$50 - Athlon 1.13GHz 266
$61 - Athlon 1.1GHz 200
$54 - Athlon 1GHz 200

Now consider one could buy a $56 XP 2400+ and run it at 1500MHz (without
overclocking the FSB) in those old 100MHz boards like the one below and it
almost becomes comical.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Ed" <nosay@home.com> wrote in message
news:q6ook0ddkak20vpdfvib7fnluh05d86bts@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
>>not be an issue for very long.
>>
>
> and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
> the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
> Ed
>
The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
They don't have any new features.
--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:50:48 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com>
wrote:

>"Ed" <nosay@home.com> wrote in message
>news:q6ook0ddkak20vpdfvib7fnluh05d86bts@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
>>>not be an issue for very long.
>>>
>>
>> and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
>> the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
>> Ed
>>
>The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
>They don't have any new features.

Geez, AMD should of just called those Durons then!
Ed