AMD and Intel Budget CPUs
Moving on to the AMD budget offerings, things have become both more interesting and less interesting. With socket AM2, you can now run everything from a lowly Sempron up through the fastest Athlon FX-62 on the same motherboard. Sounds great, right? The dual channel memory controller present on all AM2 processors should also improve performance relative to the older socket 754 Semprons; in fact, Sempron chips running on socket AM2 should be very close in performance to single core Athlon 64 chips. So what's the problem? Prices. Here are the socket AM2 Sempron offerings.
Other than the Sempron 2800+ [RTPE: SDA2800CNBOX] ($65) and the Sempron 3000+ [RTPE: SDA3000CNBOX] ($75), all of the Sempron AM2 parts cost as much as equivalently clocked Athlon 64 AM2 chips. The 2800+ and 3000+ are clocked at 1.6 GHz with 128KB and 256KB of L2 cache respectively, with the 3200+ and 3400+ clocked at 1.8 GHz -- the same as the Athlon 64 3000+. If you're looking to save money by purchasing the cheapest processor available, go ahead and grab the 2800+. Otherwise, you might as well skip the Sempron line and go straight for the single core Athlon 64s.
What about socket 754? AMD has indicated that socket 754 will remain around longer than socket 939 in terms of chip production, but that's probably more for the mobile sector than for budget offerings. If you've already got a socket 754 system you might be able to find a reasonable upgrade, but as more time passes socket 939/AM2 are only becoming more attractive for the desktop. Anything beyond the Athlon 64 3400+ Newcastle [RTPE: ADA3400AXBOX] ($146 retail) and you should look to upgrading your motherboard as well as processor instead. (We mention socket 939 as an upgrade option simply because if you already have DDR memory you will be able to keep that, move to a dual channel memory controller, and get the option for dual core processors as well.)
We didn't include the non-64-bit Semprons, simply because they are priced basically the same as the 64-bit versions so there's no reason to lose that feature. Also note that similar to the AM2 processors, there's no reason to get anything above the Sempron 64 3000+, as the socket 754 Athlon 64 parts are priced about the same as the Sempron 64s with the same clock speed.
Intel's NetBurst architecture is far less forgiving of L2 cache size reductions, so even with higher clock speeds than Pentium 4 chips the Celeron D will often perform worse. If you need a cheap socket 775 chip and you don't want to spend $85 on the Pentium 4 506, we would suggest going with the Celeron D 331 [RTPE: BX80547RE2667CN] for $53. For about $10 more, you could also upgrade to the Celeron D 341 [RTPE: BX80547RE2933CN]. Even with a clock speed of 2.93 GHz, though, the 341 will typically be outperformed by the 2.66 GHz Pentium 4 506.
Moving on to the AMD budget offerings, things have become both more interesting and less interesting. With socket AM2, you can now run everything from a lowly Sempron up through the fastest Athlon FX-62 on the same motherboard. Sounds great, right? The dual channel memory controller present on all AM2 processors should also improve performance relative to the older socket 754 Semprons; in fact, Sempron chips running on socket AM2 should be very close in performance to single core Athlon 64 chips. So what's the problem? Prices. Here are the socket AM2 Sempron offerings.
What about socket 754? AMD has indicated that socket 754 will remain around longer than socket 939 in terms of chip production, but that's probably more for the mobile sector than for budget offerings. If you've already got a socket 754 system you might be able to find a reasonable upgrade, but as more time passes socket 939/AM2 are only becoming more attractive for the desktop. Anything beyond the Athlon 64 3400+ Newcastle [RTPE: ADA3400AXBOX] ($146 retail) and you should look to upgrading your motherboard as well as processor instead. (We mention socket 939 as an upgrade option simply because if you already have DDR memory you will be able to keep that, move to a dual channel memory controller, and get the option for dual core processors as well.)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
GTVic - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
The 930 is the same except for double the cache. Why is it so much cheaper????Robberbaron12 - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
Intel are dumping the 65nm netburst processors as fast as possible, so thats why they are so cheap. The 90nm smithfields are now out of production all together except for the 805 (so I hear). I assume the 65nm netburst must be being shunted to the side to make room for all those Woodcrests and Conroes on the same production lines.JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
I think Intel is probably about ready to halt all NetBurst production, and they have a ton of inventory to clear I would guess. Anyway, *all* of the Pentium D prices are quite nice. $140 for the 820 isn't bad either, as it will then get the faster FSB relative to the 805 for only $30 more. The 9xx series is good as well, but they all seem to OC into the 3.9-4.1 GHz range, so you might as well grab the cheapest one (930).eetnoyer - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link
I doubt that Intel is "about ready" to stop producing netburst chips, considering that current predictions are for ~30% of shipments being C/M/W exiting the year. Unless, of course, they want to lose a bunch more market share. I'm more inclined to believe that they are flooding the market with cheap netburst chips in an attempt to hold unit share at any cost. Their gross margins for Q2 are going to be horrendous.By the way, would it be so hard to include clock speeds in these articles? The model numbers in many cases are almost meaningless to alot of people anymore, and will only get worse going forward. I'm pretty sure that the average reader here is more than capable of understanding the IPC differences.
bamacre - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
I don't agree that the Pentium 805 is the most interesting Intel cpu, even with it's low price. The 940, which runs cooler and uses less power, is simply awesome at roughly $75 cheaper than the X2 3800+, and running very close to it's speeds in gaming, and beating it in almost everything else. Easily, IMO, the best bang for your buck dual core cpu.JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
I don't know... overclocked 920 at 4.0 GHz doesn't match an overclocked X2 3800+ at 2.6 GHz, so at least to me AMD X2 still comes out ahead in gaming performance. However, price is definitely in favor of Intel right now. I guess "most interesting" is all a matter of personal preference - for some people, FX-62 and Core 2 Extreme are probably the "most interesting". :)JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
I think single core will stick around, but all the 1024KB chips are going away. The question is whether Sempron chips are going to be different cores, or just Orleans with some of the L2 disabled. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD goes the disabled cache route.gerf - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
754 outlive 939? I remember some build reviews where 939 was only to be used because of "future upgrade choices." Ouch.What I wonder, is if my Averatec 6235's mobile A64 (754) can be swapped with a new Turion.
JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link
Your best bet is to ask Averatec; there's a reasonable chance you will need a new BIOS version, but other than that it should be capable of supporting the Turion. Turion is also built using and 90 nm process where is the socket 754 Athlon 64 Mobile chips are 130 nm, so even at the same clock speed Turion should run cooler.gerf - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link
Well, Averatec doesn't apparantly do bios updates. I'd have to check the chipset type, and find something more oem