Semperon 2600 VS Athlon XP 2400

[wintermute]

My athlon xp 2400 failed the other day. I have an extende warrenty so I took it to fry's and they swapped it out for a semperon 2600. When I do benchmarks it appears the the semperson 2600 is slower then the 2400. Is this true? Should I go back and have them swap it for a different chip?

 

[crizazykid2]

Man, they are both slow...invest in athlon, the lower 3000's are not that bad of a deal, I say get the 3500.

 

[thebunny]

the sempron processors have a smaller cache memory and they are named by comparrison to the celeron, not P4.
indeed semprons are slower than athlon XP, but your 2600+(1833) should be almost as fast as your 2400(2000) because in youre case both the sempron and the athlon have 256 cache, because your athlon has not a barton core :roll:

 

[ShadowdogKGB]

This is a coincidence that you should ask this because I have a couple rigs sitting here, one with a Sempron 64 2600 and one with an XP 2400.

There's no question about it. The Sempron 2600 is the better CPU.

I don't really have the time to explain it but if you want to hang on to that old Athlon XP technology then go ahead. You're missing out.

 

[thebunny]

u have a sempron 64, he was talking about socket A i belive

 

[endyen]

While the sempron does run 133mhz slower than the xp, some of that difference is made up by the faster fsb. There are even some benchmarks that say the sempron, with the 166 mhz fsb is faster.
My big question to you is, did they set the fsb to 166/333. If it is running at the old chip's fsb (133/266) that would explain why you are seeing poorer perf.
If your memory is DDR266, you may have a problem. So long as it is DDR333 or faster, you should be fine.
I am assuming of course that your mobo properly supports ths sempron chips.

 

[ShadowdogKGB]

u have a sempron 64, he was talking about socket A i belive

Ah yes. Indeed you are correct.